Is belief in global warming much different than religion?

Tags: al, belief, blind, climate, global, gore, warming

Views: 1741

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks Unseen. That's probably a better expression of my sentiment than I wrote.

If those who feel they know the cause of climate change really want to implement some change, perhaps we should raise the overall educational level or Americans and other peoples.

AGW isn't the only reason to act on a number of the issues at play here, and sooner or later a number of these issues will have to be addressed. These 'let the next guy deal with it' sort of stall tactics have been in play for decades. If it was just about diverting funds, there are other places from which to divert, but that's not the core issue: the core issue is prioritization.

If it was just about diverting funds, there are other places from which to divert, but that's not the core issue: the core issue is prioritization.

Where are those funds likely to come from then? (And note I said "likely.") Military spending? Like that's going to happen. It WOULD inevitably impact areas related to relieving poverty, funding education, and improving health. And it will at first affect the money the US spends abroad to improve the lot of the Third World.

You're oddly missing the point and making mine for me at the same time. Money not invested into fighting global warming is the result of lack of priority given to the cause. If more priority is given, then the funds to support the effort would, conceivably, come from the next lowest priority items.

The problem with your position is that you justify not changing prioritization in one area because prioritization in another area won't shift for the better. The environment could, in this scenario, hypothetically become more important, yet education could not? No, how government/ society prioritizes is itself the problem.

Worded differently, the problem isn't that AGW funding and education (or other social issues) funding are, hypothetically, pitted against each other, but rather the fact that we pit these things up against each other to begin with.

The money has to come from somewhere. You've been very unspecific.

It's not about where the money comes from: I'm saying you're making a point of false pragmatism.

Look, say there's four men at the table for dinner, Abe, Bill, Carl, and Dennis. There's a pot with four portions in it, and because Abe is closest, he dishes it out. He gives one bowl Bill, one to Carl, and two to himself.

Carl looks at the situation and says, "Whoa Abe, why didn't Dennis get any soup?"

To this Abe replies, "There's no more soup left. If I have to give some to Dennis, it has to come from somewhere. You want me to take it from Bill? That's kind of a dick move, don't you think?"

Maybe in this scenario, There's no changing Abe. Perhaps there really is no way to get him to see that his distribution is flawed, but there is no pragmatism in leaving the status quo. Furthermore, it would be counterproductive to fault anyone other than Abe for the inappropriate distribution.

So when you rule out something like diverting from military funding with its over bloated spending in America because it's just not going to happen, that is merely acceptance of a flawed system, not pragmatic consideration. 

The reason this is problematic is that you've framed the issue as environmental cause subtracting from social or social from environmental, but this is an incorrect assessment.

Money can come from efficiencies in health care in the United States, but that meets political resistance, and so Americans continue to overspend.

Money can come from military funding, but political agendas prevent that from happening.

Money could come from reducing subsidization in polluting industries, but industries threaten to move operations overseas, or to withhold projects which will generate jobs and tax revenue, even when those companies are lucrative and financially stable enough to do without. Also, that subsidization could have gone toward greener operations which, incidentally, may reduces some pollution-related health issues.

Doesn't matter. the issue isn't where the money comes from. It's in not pinning the problem on the wrong parties. That is to say, not subtracting from anti-AGW efforts by characterizing social funding as the victim of its success, just as we wouldn't subtract from Carl's advocacy if Dennis getting soup by framing Bill as the victim of his advocacy's success.

Just to be clear, despite the analogy above, I do not believe we're talking about a zero-sum game in reality.

No? Less money for military spending = higher unemployment. Efficiencies in health care means the work can be done by fewer employees.

Jobs do not correlate in a direct relationship with spending, efficiency doesn't always refer to labour, and the money is hypothetically being reinvested in other areas which also require workers.

I'll give you a hypothetical if-you-say-so then.

There's a point of diminishing returns where throwing more money at a problem doesn't fix it any faster or better. The US Budget has a lot of that in it. If we could fix some of the systemic problems in the bureaucracy side and pressure our Congress into changing their stance, then we would have enough to go around.Of course, if I had a Golden Ticket, then I'd also be the proud inheritor of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

There are always options, like reducing subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal for instance which takes a huge chunk of change from the taxpayers every year even though they are the most profitable companies in the world. Besides, like Kris said, government budgets aren't a zero sum game. At some point priorities shift and spending more money on military equipment that the Brass doesn't want or attempting to improve the lot of Third World countries that aren't improving no matter how much we have spent will shift to a lower priority.

RSS

Forum

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 3 Replies

Ear-piercing a baby

Started by Simon Mathews in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Erock68la 6 hours ago. 25 Replies

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie 8 hours ago. 9 Replies

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Pope Beanie 9 hours ago. 134 Replies

Is There Any Ex-Mennonites or Ex-Amish On This Site?

Started by Jessica Miller in Advice. Last reply by Belle Rose 17 hours ago. 27 Replies

Blog Posts

How did that happen?

Posted by Belle Rose on December 19, 2014 at 4:36am 6 Comments

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service