Remember me
▼ Content

Do you agree with Gary Johnson?


Do you agree with Gary Johnson?25-09-2016 23:34
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
He says, the Sun will go red giant and engulf Earth anyway. So there's no point in doing anything about AGW.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/gary-johnson-climate-change
26-09-2016 01:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Doctor: "Well, you have this easily treatable disease. It costs some money to treat, though."
Patient: "**** that. I'm going to die anyway, why would I pay good money just to keep from dying?"

If AGW is happening, that's the most stupid thing to say. If it isn't, it's still pretty stupid.
26-09-2016 01:30
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Doctor: "Well, you have this easily treatable disease. It costs some money to treat, though."
Patient: "**** that. I'm going to die anyway, why would I pay good money just to keep from dying?"

If AGW is happening, that's the most stupid thing to say. If it isn't, it's still pretty stupid.


The keyword is if. Nothing needs to be done about something that is not certain. It's like. If I take a shower, I might slip and die. So I best not take a shower. That's ridiculous.
26-09-2016 03:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"If it's not certain"? Nothing is ever certain. I won't go dancing on the railroad tracks anytime soon, even though I'd probably live. Nor will I swim during a thunderstorm. Nor will I taunt a madman with a gun. I'm not CERTAIN I'd die. But there's a chance I won't take.
26-09-2016 04:39
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"If it's not certain"? Nothing is ever certain. I won't go dancing on the railroad tracks anytime soon, even though I'd probably live. Nor will I swim during a thunderstorm. Nor will I taunt a madman with a gun. I'm not CERTAIN I'd die. But there's a chance I won't take.


If AGW is real, what is the cost, what is the benefit? Every action needs a cost benefit analysis. If cost > benefit, then action. If benefit > cost, then the opposite action. If no analysis possible, then no action.

It's like. Let's say you have 10 dollars. You like a toy. You do not know the price of the toy. The price of the toy could be more than 10 dollars could be less than 10 dollars. Therefore you will not spend the 10 dollars to try buy the toy.
Edited on 26-09-2016 04:41
26-09-2016 05:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Doctor: "Well, you have this easily treatable disease. It costs some money to treat, though."
Patient: "**** that. I'm going to die anyway, why would I pay good money just to keep from dying?"

If AGW is happening, that's the most stupid thing to say. If it isn't, it's still pretty stupid.

Everything about Global Warming is stupid. Your analogy would be better as such:

Doctor: You're totally, hosed. You have a lethal disease that is caused by you eating food and when you eat, it affects everyone! You need to greatly reduce your consumption footprint down to 10% right now and then work on weening off it completely shifting completely to just breathing. We need to achieve food independence if we're going to have any chance of survival, and it all starts with YOU.

Patient: All that or everyone is going to die.

Doctor: Yep. You've brought us dangerously close to the TIPPING POINT! It might already be too late.

Patient: But I don't have any symptoms or problems of any kind.

Doctor: Denier! You're just spouting propanda that was funded by the restaurant industry.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 06:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, since Gary's saying it's happening, his logic is completely incomprehensible. So the former would apply to his thoughts. The latter may, of course, better reflect reality.




Join the debate Do you agree with Gary Johnson?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Two articles claiming more or less the opposite?(1% or 97% agree)1329-09-2019 01:41
Kenney says while he believes humans cause climate change, not all UCP members have to agree on that022-03-2019 15:52
Does 97% of science agree?917-12-2017 01:24
I agree CO2 should be restricted, but not for the reason promoted431-01-2017 01:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact