Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Which Threat Is Worse: Global Warming Or Terrorism?

After Gore and Co. won their Oscar for the Inconvenient Truth, I thought I would hunker down and actually watch it, particularly since it arrived via Netflix a couple weeks ago and I hadn't even cracked the seal. I do have to say, the movie is rather disturbing, particularly the projected levels of CO2 for the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, the video brought to my mind several very important question beyond what to do about changing our habits to reduce CO2 emissions and our dependency on and addiction to carbon based energy derivatives. Let's roll this out...drum roll please...as

Windspike's Topics For Tuesday
  1. Which threat is worse: Global Warming or Terrorism?

  2. Which threat resolution receives the most in terms of dollars spent to solve?

  3. Which solution investment has a higher potential return on investment?

P.S. I rode my bicycle to work today. What did you do today to reduce your carbon emissions?


isabelita said...

We were talking about going to see "An Inconvenient Truth" this eveng at our local Drinking Liberally spot; haven't seen it yet.
As far as imminent threats, if any camp of terrorists sets off any nuclear weaponry, meaning Bush/Cheney, whatever Middle East groups, North Korea, Pakistan - golly gee, sure are a lot of potential perps, aren't there? -the whole globe is fucked. That could happen well before global warming's effects really screw things up. So - short term, pretty much any nation or group in the world that sets off nuclear shit; long term threat, global warming.
No wonder I feel down lately.

Enlightenment said...

I am only going to address the first question. Which is a worse threat? Global warming of course. Windspike, am I to assume by you asking this question that you have decided you want to buy the bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn? Do I really have to explain again why your view on the "war on terror" is distorted by looking through the propaganda lens the Cheney regime has put in front of your eyes?

Look, are there real, genuine terrorists in the world? Yes, of course, and most have legitimate grievances. But did "Islamic terrorists" have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11? Of course not. To believe they did would be to believe "19 hijackers" can suspend the laws of physics for a day; telekinetically render the world's most efficient Air Force totally impotent for a day when every single other time airliners went off course they responded normally; bring seven or more of their number back to life days later; telepathically reassure Bush's Secret Service staff that he wasn't a target on 9/11 so as to make it unneccessary for them to follow standard operating procedure and whisk him away immediately to a safer location; fly "airliners" like expert pilots even though they couldn't master Cessnas and Piper Cubs, one being so incompetent his instructor was unsure if he ever drove a car before; fly an "airliner" in maneuvers that no real airliner can do; make "airliners" vaporize into tiny fragments instead of having large identifiable segments left such as wings, tail section, fuselage, etc.; enable cell phone calls from United 93 to go through by the dozen at 35,000 feet altitude when it has been proven that cell phones wouldn't work above 8,000 feet; and many other impossibilities that render the "official" 9/11 fairy tale about as believable as a 5-year-old whose hands are covered in chocolate and cookie crumbs who is standing next to an empty cookie jar trying to explain how he "didn't" really eat all the chocolate chip cookies. There has to come a time, Windspike, when a believer of the "official" 9/11 myth has to admit to himself that he is only "believing" the myth because it is what he WANTS to believe.

Anonymous said...

P.S. I rode my bicycle to work today. What did you do today to reduce your carbon emissions?

Replaced all of our thermostats with programmables that will shut the heat off when we're not around or when we're sleeping. (Well OK that was actually yesterday, but since we did 4 of the little buggers, that should cover me through the weekend.)

Anonymous said...

Global Warming or Terrorism?

What Global Warming strategists fail to mention is that global warming is caused by people, therefore any practice that eliminates people reduces global warming. Terrorism is a partial solution to global warming.

To reverse global warming the world needs 4 billion fewer people. Terrorists can't manage that. Global warming will itself eventually manage the problem by eliminating 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the world's population. But 'eventually' is too slow to do any good for those opponents of higher global temperatures now living. Who is proposing killing 4 billion people today?

The problem has no practical solution. So fugedaboudit. Let Mother Nature take care of it.