- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
You could go back and forth all day, or you can end the conversation fairly quickly - simply state that you don’t debate religion, and if you’re to be expected to treat it like science, your green friend has to do so first. They can accomplish this by answering three simple questions:
1)Given the age of the planet and how widely the temperature has fluctuated over time, what is the ideal temperature that the Earth must be, and how will we maintain it over time?
2) One of the foundations of scientific theory is that it stands up to defeating theories that prove it wrong. We’ve heard how shrinking glaciers prove global warming, growing glaciers prove global warming, more storms prove global warming, and fewer storms prove global warming. What events prove their theories false?
3) Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares. Off of the top of my head here are a few from the last 40 years:
-Population would outgrow food supply causing mass starvation
-Oil reserves would be depleted by 1980
-Global Cooling
-Dioxin threatened us all (until it was discovered a pint of Ben & Jerry’s contains 3,000 times the “safe†level)
-Oil reserves would be depleted by 2000
-The hole in the ozone layer would continue to grow at an exponential rate
Since all of these crises turned out to be wrong, why is it that this time is different?
The followers of Al Gore don’t like having their views challenged, but if they want me to treat their beliefs like science they’re going to have to do it first. Not that these are necessary, but here are some bonus questions:
1)Assuming we go completely green and rely only on renewable energy, how much will it cost? And how much of the countryside will have to be covered with windmills and solar panels?
2)How come Iran is allowed to build nuclear power plants but we're not?
3)If we are truly in a crisis, why does the issue’s #1 advocate live in a hugely energy inefficient house while flying around the world in a private jet? Shouldn't he live a more carbon neutral life like this great American?
4)Given how incontrovertible he claims the evidence to be, why won’t Gore debate Bjorn Lomborg?
5)Why did the nomenclature for this crisis have to change from Global Warming to Climate Change?
To answer the obvious question, I haven't made anyone see the light, and you probably won’t either. But at least your acquaintance will be irritated at you enough to shut up.
1)Given the age of the planet and how widely the temperature has fluctuated over time, what is the ideal temperature that the Earth must be, and how will we maintain it over time?
2) One of the foundations of scientific theory is that it stands up to defeating theories that prove it wrong. We’ve heard how shrinking glaciers prove global warming, growing glaciers prove global warming, more storms prove global warming, and fewer storms prove global warming. What events prove their theories false?
3) Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares. Off of the top of my head here are a few from the last 40 years:
-Population would outgrow food supply causing mass starvation
-Oil reserves would be depleted by 1980
-Global Cooling
-Dioxin threatened us all (until it was discovered a pint of Ben & Jerry’s contains 3,000 times the “safe†level)
-Oil reserves would be depleted by 2000
-The hole in the ozone layer would continue to grow at an exponential rate
Since all of these crises turned out to be wrong, why is it that this time is different?
The followers of Al Gore don’t like having their views challenged, but if they want me to treat their beliefs like science they’re going to have to do it first. Not that these are necessary, but here are some bonus questions:
1)Assuming we go completely green and rely only on renewable energy, how much will it cost? And how much of the countryside will have to be covered with windmills and solar panels?
2)How come Iran is allowed to build nuclear power plants but we're not?
3)If we are truly in a crisis, why does the issue’s #1 advocate live in a hugely energy inefficient house while flying around the world in a private jet? Shouldn't he live a more carbon neutral life like this great American?
4)Given how incontrovertible he claims the evidence to be, why won’t Gore debate Bjorn Lomborg?
5)Why did the nomenclature for this crisis have to change from Global Warming to Climate Change?
To answer the obvious question, I haven't made anyone see the light, and you probably won’t either. But at least your acquaintance will be irritated at you enough to shut up.
