1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

George Will on global warming

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by hondo, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    How so?

    I can reasonably define terrorism in practice as disgruntled people--usually religious extremists--who choose to indisciminately kill innocents, often on a mass scale. All you have to do is look at what happened on 9/11 to know that the harm caused by terrorism is very definable (unlike the harm from a warming trend). And terrorism has in fact, played itself out numerous times, with negative consequences (unlike a warming trend, which has produced no negative consequences that we know of). There are alo preventative measures we can take to try to reduce the liklihood of the negative events of terrorism from happening (unlike a warming trend, in which we have no idea if various courses of action will have much or any effect).

    I can say definitively that terrorism is a danger to us. No one can say that about the warming trend we are documenting.
     
  2. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Saying terrorism is a danger is easy.

    A danger to whom, though?

    Is a farmer in Nebraska any more likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack today than he was 50 years ago?

    And more important, how do you solve the problem?

    You can't kill every terrorist. They are willing to kill themselves as long as you die, too. Those two facts make the problem inherently unsolvable.

    So I say . . . let's let the global warming problem help us out.

    Wean us off oil = less dependence on the Middle East = less interference in the Middle East = reduced terrorism threat = cleaner air = fewer CO2 emmissions = perhaps solving the global warming problem.

    The benefits are a domino effect. With one caveat: It will cost money now instead of later.
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    We should be looking for alternative energy sources for lots of reasons. I'm not arguing. But you are wrong in the way you are comparing anti-terrorism measures to potential anti-global warming measures.

    There is a cause and effect when it comes to screening people at airports, for example. It potentially prevents someone from bringing a bomb onto an airplane. So you can weigh the cost of those very specific measures to a very definable benefit and make a decision about the costs relative to the expected benefit.

    You can not tell me that weening ourselves off oil is going to have any significant effect (any effect at all, really) on global warming. Nor can you even say what the threat of global warming really is. You can only speculate. The two are not comparable in terms of defining and evaluating their harm or measures aimed at preventing them. Not comparable at all.
     
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    My only response to that is . . .

    . . . when 80-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs are frisked at airports, we are NOT "weighing the cost of those very specific measures to a very definable benefit."

    We are throwing darts blindfolded.
     
  5. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Well, the cleanest energy source by far is nuclear energy. But the lefties have completely shut that out as a possiblility. Nice job, lefties. Second-cleanest we have not that is actually in enough availability -- no, wind and solar don't produce enough energy as is -- is natural gas. But, again, lefties have made getting that more difficult and expensive than it needs to be because they've outlawed drilling for it in all kinds of places. So we have to import a lot of it, but first it must be converted to liquid to be shipped, then reconverted to gas. That means a lot of specialized ports that -- you guessed it -- the lefties have blocked. So it can only come in in a few ports instead of all over at east, south and west shores.

    So how green is the left in all honesty, and how interested are they in stopping global warming? Not very. But they are interested in wrecking the American economy. Always have been.
     
  6. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Yep. American economy just sucked donkey balls from 1993-2000, didn't it?
     
  7. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    To do list:
    1) Go to gym
    2) Pick up dry cleaning
    3) Wreck American economy.
     
  8. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    My to do list
    1) Go to post office
    2) Twiddle my fingers as I wait for a PDF proof
    3) Plot the destruction of the American economy
    4) Drive around aimlessly as I wonder what I should do for dinner
    5) Download Porn Surf the interwebs
    ADD: 6) Spend a solid hour debating myself on going to see Ghostrider
     
  9. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Actually, the cleanest sources of energy are wind and solar. And you're right, present solar panels aren't able to convert a big enough percentage of sunlight to electric. Researchers are making them more efficient each year, but we're years away from being able to use solar for all our electric needs.

    Your rant about the "lefties wanting to destroy the American economy" is not provable and adds nothing to the civil discussion of global warming.
     
  10. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    Indians, let's petition the White House to send JR to China to "tell those bastards off" about their Kyoto compliance and to set an example for the polar bear.
     
  11. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Breaking news!!!! BTE thinks we operated under the Kyoto treaty from 1993-2000!
     
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Tell me, BTE, why are they frisking 80-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and letting Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 walk through? Because profiling has been banned due to political correctness. That's the left's fault, not the right's. And for pointing out this glaring truth, all you guys will now label me a racist.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page