Saturday, July 25, 2009

So you think there's some sort of 'moral imperative' regarding CO2?

You may be right, but not for the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" agenda issue lies the True Believers want to embed as "settled science".

(hat tip: CO2 Science)


  1. Ah, I see. There's a moral imperative to use all of the available energy technology, currently mostly petrol based, as much and as quickly as possible so our generation and maybe the next one can all be around to hug our grandkids...but screw everybody after that?

  2. To say that your post is relevant to the subject of the video would a stretch.

    In my experience debate has never been a strong point for you.

    Thanks for the re-affirmation.

  3. "When people talk about the moral issue of controlling carbon dioxide emissions, I say, "Yes, that's right." In 1900 the energy technology of the day supported 56 billion life years...the average lifespan was 35 years. Now the energy technology supports about 450 billion life years, that is an 8 fold increase in the experience of human life and that is a spectacular achievement.

    I am a grandfather now. And when my little grandson runs up and hugs me around the knees, I am experiencing something in human life that 100 years ago the average person could not. So the experience of human life has been granted to us by energy technology is tremendous and wonderful, therefore the moral issue here is that we should provide for people who do not have it energy so that they can experience life that is safer, that is healthier, that is longer, that's the moral issue."

    That's the text of the video.

    The guy says we must provide energy to those who don't have it, so they can live longer, healthier lives. Sounds good. But...

    He tells us that the 'energy technology' of today supports 8 times and many human life years as it did in 1900. Let's think about, the vast improvement in life expectancy is because of more energy? I can see how part of the credit can go to energy, but advances in medicine and other sciences...(correlation is not causation?)...but even if we say they're all related and energy is the driving force...well...

    The fact is that we're not getting a whole lot more energy out of the same amount of fuel. In fact, since 1900, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have increased more than 8-fold...which roughly means that we're using 8 times as much is it 'energy technology' that drives the improvement or just more fuel?

    Next consider that the majority of our energy comes from fossil fuels and that those fossil fuels are limited know, one day we'll run out...then what this guy is really saying is that we should continue the path we're on, using more energy and, consequently, more fossil fuels to make the world a super better place right now. So in a few decades, our great-great grandbabies will dig a hole in search for black gold, and come up with zilch...but thank the heavens, at least they got to hug our knees.

    One day we're going to run out, global warming aside, encouraging greater efficiency with conservation is the moral imperative.

  4. I was right.

    You have no clue about what was actually said in the video.

    Go back and watch it again.

    Or don't.

    It's debatable if you would even understand if someone literally spelled it out for you.

    As I said before, do they not teach courses that develop critical thinking and analysis at State anymore?