Photo Credit: YouTube
We know this video is old--it was uploaded to YouTube more than two years ago--but after Peter Rothberg at the Nation reminded us of it's existence, we couldn't help but post it.
As Air America's own editor-in-chief Beau Friedlander put it (after re-watching and then uploading it to Facebook), "It's the most crystalline argument regarding climate change I've ever seen."
The other reason we're posting this "super duper old" video (Beau's words, not mine) is because, well, two years. If I were a scientist specializing in climate change, I would make a list of all of the things that could have been accomplished in two years had we--the world--taken a stance. But since I'm not a scientist, I'll leave that up to your imagination. Just think.
In any case, watch it below and post it to your Facebook, Twitter, or just e-mail it around. If you've never seen it, enjoy; and if you have, well, a little reminder never hurt anyone.
There are 4 comments
@bmora
Thank you for clarifying, and I apologize if I was accusing you of making an argument that wasn't yours in the first place. I am still more than a little amazed and amused at some of the off-the-wall and just plain ignorant arguments that climate change deniers use to claim that climate change is a hoax, perhaps invented by Al Gore to shovel money toward some unspecified group for some nefarious ends. I'm sure Glenn Beck has some conspiracy theories about the matter.
@Uffdaguy
You are correct when you say it is an odd argument. I use the author's logic (not mine), which he states is flawless, and I demonstrate the fallacy in his premise. If you think global warming is imagined, then any threat, sea serpents, is on par with the menace of global warming. Thus we should devote huge resources to fighting sea serpents.
It is his argument not mine. I take no issue with the scientific fact that is global warming. His logic is flawed and that is all that I am saying.
@bmora
So, you believe global warming is manmade, on one hand, and then make some odd argument that seems to be saying that we shouldn't waste money on dealing with it because there may be other problems out there that are manmade?
If that is the gist of your argument, you seem to advocating that we just not bother with it because we can't deal with every threat to mankind. By that logic, why bother with vaccines, as we're all going to die anyway, if not from the disease we have vaccines for, then maybe cancer, or being hit by a bus, or being struck by lightning.
You deal with threats depending on their immediacy and their potential for death and destruction. On that scale, climate change rates extremely high in both indices. Climate change is already occurring, and it has the potential to literally kill billions, either directly through weather extremes, or indirectly, through warfare brought about by climate change-induced starvation and coastal flooding.
I would like to point out that I believe global warming is man-made, at least in some part.
The problem is that this argument works for every threat, real or imagined, to man kind. Replace global warming with sea serpents and your logic dictates that we should spend money fighting sea monsters.
Post a Comment
You are not logged in:
Log In | Register