Global warming is fearmongering brainwashing FUD

Brian Atkins brian@posthuman.com
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:29:23 -0400


Gary Pupurs wrote:
> 
> > > > The majority of climatologists believe global warming is happening,
> and
> 
> I've mostly stayed out of this discussion since I've been so busy today,
> even though I work for an NGO focused on sustainability issues.
> 
> But just a quick thought, doesn't the precautionary principle count for
> something here?  Right now, we can make quite a few changes to potentially

The precautionary principle is the ultimate form of FUD. "Let's don't
ever allow any new technology unless it can be proven completely and
utterly 100% safe". Of course there is no such thing as completely
and utterly 100% safe, so actually implementing such a principle would
pretty much halt progress (what the Greens want). Imagine if the FDA
would never approve any drug unless it could be proven not only 100%
safe, but that it would never ever have any risk 40 years from now. We
would never have any new drugs approved.

> impact global warming (if it exists) that are relatively inexpensive and
> would affect our daily quality of life in very few ways (inexpensive
> compared to potential costs down the road). If we wait 100 years until we
> have a certain answer and we were wrong, costs (both economically and
> quality of life) will logically be much higher.  And any costs today can be
> amortized over very long periods of time.  We do so much to avoid and
> minimize risk today, both on a personal and societal level, why should this
> be different?

Perhaps you would like to respond to this document?

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

Why should the world blow billions and billions of dollars to no real
effect? Why should we slow down progress and limit ourselves for no
real reason? Just because we might be wrong (says your "gut feel")?
Well the Sun might go supernova 100 years from now, but I don't see
you building a spaceship...

> 
> Sure, there's a good chance that nothing will happen, but in the meantime,
> there's sure to be other benefits from acting now anyway, such as cleaner
> air, less environmental damage, new environmental-related industries, better
> quality of life.

The air is already getting cleaner, and has been for 30 years. I don't see
why we need to do any more. My quality of life will be most increased by
increases in technology and spending power, not by having my taxes and gas
prices raised due to strict environmental regulations.

> 
> I'm reminded of Pascal's Dilemma (I believe that's the name, been a while
> since Philosophy 101...). From a purely logical point of view, it's better
> to believe in God, he claimed. When you die, your belief is either right or
> wrong; there's either a God or not.  If there is a God, the benefits are
> infinite.  If you believed and you're wrong, you haven't really lost much.

Except that now you're dead. Oh well, according to most Greenies, death
is a Good Thing (tm).

You might enjoy reading this page:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

> (Unless you were believing in the wrong God...  But then, no one is saying
> we need to accelerate 'global warming' catalysts just for the sake of doing
> so...)
> 
> One thing Americans, in particular, have to begin realizing is that Quality
> of Life is a much better measure of happiness, progress, and "development"
> than the Standard of Living measures we've been striving to surpass for most
> of the past century.  One of the biggest misconceptions about sustainable
> development is that your life will be radically affected for the worse; it
> doesn't have to, although some measures and perceptions of success, wealth
> and power will have to shift.

Translated from Greenspeak, you want us all to live a more regulated
existence with less progress with less money. Thanks, but no thanks.

> 
> > >Strange, I watched a nice story by John Stossel on ABC a few weeks back
> > >where he showed that about 1700 scientists had signed a declaration that
> > >global warming exists and is important, and yet he also showed that
> > >17,000 scientists had signed a document with the opposite viewpoint.
> 
> Just as long as you keep in mind that petitions like that of scientists
> "for" and "against" such things isn't always as clear as it seems.  You need
> to look at the funding and see who's promoting the 'study' or how the survey
> or petition was worded... It's often an industry front group that takes the
> "It's all hogwash" stance under an unassuming organization name. Not always,
> but it pays to pay attention to those who have big pockets, though they
> prefer you pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Do you have a real comment about the Oregon Petition, or just FUD?

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
-- 
Brian Atkins
Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/