Clark Donner wrote:I would think the groups that should be doing the research should be companies like BP so they can keep their market share.
Are you saying that it should be regulated by say a government or are you saying that individuals should persuade this through social pressures (i.e. I won't buy your oil unless you show me that you are looking for something better in the future). Only one of those is a feasible and correct answer imo.
Clark Donner wrote:After a bit of googling I found this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
That is what scares me. In my oppinion we are better off trying to at least explore the options in limiting green house gas emisions. It could be that these few scientists who think it is a problem are wrong, but if they are not do we really want to put ourselves in that corner?
Thanks for reading my ramble
Okay this video is "terrifying" to me, how this man can have so many incorrect assumptions, false dichotomies, appeal to beliefs, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Fear, Begging the Question, Confusing Cause and Effect, Gambler's Fallacy, Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc, Slippery Slope, and the most important which should probably be at the beginning of the list is a false premise. It is wrought with logical fallacies that to address them individually would take far too long. So I will address what I consider to be the most important and that is his premise and dichotomy.
"...When faced with uncertainty like we are with climate change..." (1:28). This is a false premise and presumes that GCC is unintelligible. This is simply not true. We can use inductive reasoning and correct research to discover the scientific ramifications of the individual on the climate. He later leads into an extreme false dichotomy ending the video with, "...the
only choice is column A..." (7:55) (taking direct fiscal actions)
The free market has tried to (and continues to try to) create viable alternative fuels because let's face it, people want cheaper. Running a car on water, nuclear energy, whatever is an alternative that most would jump on. There is no need to regulate the innovation (especially by force) because this hinders the advancement of discovery and does not enhance it. Social pressures can create change within a way a company does business because they want to maintain a consumer base for profit.
Here is the crux of it, the individual (for themselves and not for the group) must decide where they stand on the issues and how they want to approach it. If the individual decides to ride a bike to work because the idea of trees being hurt is unfathomable then that is their individual choice. I draw the line when the opinions (not facts) of others impedes on me and mine.
I would like to also point out that that this video advocates taking my life by means of my financial resources for an alternative to stave off a potential “threat”. Where is the line drawn? Where do we get to a point that says my “security" is more important than my individual freedoms? There is no way, save living in an underground bunker, that can give me any amount of confidence that I will be safe from natural disasters, nuclear bombs and zombie attacks, but living in a prison (be it financial or location) is not a reasonable request to me. To summarize, do the benefits of "...increased taxation, burdensome regulations, bloated government..." (2:42) outweigh the potential "risks"? In this case, no they do not.