George Will on global warming

Thanks for proving the point I made in the first paragraph.

I buy carbon offsets. I have overinsulated my house. I use long-life lightbulbs. I'm researching putting solar panels on my house. I practice "Leave No Trace" principals when I go hiking or backwoods camping. I buy local produce at a farmer's market. I recycle and compost organic matter to use on my tomato plants. None of these things are difficult or cost prohibitive.

 

Terrorist!

 

They why do you continue to use fuels to heat your home and drive your car. Because if global warming is such a problem and will hinder our own existence it is against human nature to not to want to sustain life. It would be selfish of you to not want to protect your future children or family. Unless of course you know this global warming thing has been blow out of portion and that you are really trying to do good but you don't need to go to extremes like these scientist suggest we have to or we will all perish.

Secondly, I do all those things you do. In fact I am always researching things that are more efficient and environmentally friendly but that is not because I am scared. I do it because of how cost friendly it is and because it is the right thing to do. Maybe everyone here is missing my point. I love our world and I want to protect it but I am not foolish enough to believe that we are killing the earth. I have been to 6 different countries and 46 states and I have seen what environmental friendly things can do and I have seen what polluters can do but at the same time do realize how big this world really is. How many areas of this world go untouched every day? I also understand how volcanoes and earth quakes which man has no impact on affects the world as a whole.

 

This is the problem. There are no "sides" to this. It is neither political or ideological issue; rather, it's a scientific one. And the discussion is similar to the false "debate" between "intelligent design" and evolution. The grown ups -- the real scientists -- have already reached conclusions through scientific study. The other "side" merely amounts to people who don't like their conclusions for various political, ideological or economic reasons. The only room for genuine debate is on the appropriate response.

 

I don't see anybody saying we have to absolutely quit driving cars at this very second. I do see people saying it's about time we started developing cars that get much better mileage. It's about time we started harnessing solar and wind energy instead of burning NG, oil or coal.

Let's use your logic on you for a second. You don't believe man can do serious harm to the environment, correct? Does that mean you're in favor of littering?

 

Ragu --
A few too many "if's" in there but, otherwise, thank god you're not other people.

 

Average number of Americans killed by motor vehicles each year: 43,000

 

And 20,000 of those are alcohol-related.

Want to ban alcohol?

Wouldn't bother me in the least, but some people might not like the idea.

I'd say the global warming problem is much more defined than the terrorism problem, which we have no reservations about pissing away $200 billion every year to "solve" (if we aren't, in fact, making it worse).

 

All right, now we're really getting off topic. Let's back to the main point: indiansnetwork's unintentional comedy.

 

Nah, those "ask drunk [idiot's name here]" threads are too compelling.

 

Yeah, come on -- we're being touched by greatness here.