Moderator: Nicole Marie
There are no 'you's' in the post adressed to you. I don't know you're position on the issues.
The previous post was adressed to OT, although I failed to note so. You're post did not exist at the time I started writing it.
piqaboo wrote:BigJon@Work wrote: BTW, OT, ask you wife about science by consensus. She seems to have a handle on it.
This article is not science by consensus, sorry BigJon.
piqaboo wrote:Its one possible interpretation of the data gathered. From what I've read (its not extensive) on the subject, there is little doubt that temperatures are up. The discussion, and the focus of additional scientific research, is on quantifying the rise, and figuring out if it is part of a recurring pattern, and the cause of the rise. Global warming is part of a healthy scientific debate. My problem with the guys in charge right now is that they categorically deny it (as you seem to be doing), rather than acknowledging it as a possibility.
piqaboo wrote: That puts them on par with the guy in africa who denies HIV causes AIDS.
piqaboo wrote: A whole lot of folks in France (and much of the world) decided to ignore the possibility - not yet proven, but being researched - that AIDS could be transmitted thru blood transfusions. They didnt present counter data, they didnt discuss. They ignored, because not ignoring it was going to cost them money. Turns out, ignoring it cost them a lot more money. Most of the French at high levels in the Bloodbanking industry (and gov't related to it) went to jail. The French Gov't is now one of the first to implement every new bloodscreening test that comes across their radar screen. Net costs much higher than taking the data into account and accting conservatively, 'just in case'.
Global warming falls into that category, IMO.
piqaboo wrote: Taking a conservative approach often reaps unexpected/unpredicted benefits.
An example - coaltar dyes.
In the '50s, it was discovered coaltar dyes cause cancer. Gov't banned their use in lipstick etc. Mucho outcry from cosmetic manufacturers ...Oh No Mr Bill! What will we use???:???
The replacement dyes are many, varied, and the overall resulting textures and colors of lipsticks are far better than they were in the '50s, as well as far safer. Necessity is a mother, as they say.
piqaboo wrote: So I expect it will be when reduced emissions become mandated again. The various and sundry factories will find ways to increase their output on less power, in order to reduce overall emissions. This will in turn reduce their costs. Unmeasurable side benefits will be improved health in their worker populations, lowering corporate health insurance costs, or reducing work lost to sicktime (paid or unpaid). Other benefits will arise, tho I cant guess what they will be.
OperaTenor wrote:Is it playing it safe to spend >$500 billion on an unnecessary war?
Is it playing it safe to spend >$500 billion on an unnecessary war?
Do you feel, Shap and BigJon, that overall the US economy suffered because the feds insisted on improving mpg?
OperaTenor wrote:Gore, et al, may be wrong. But, what IF they're right? What bad can come from trying to accomplish what they say we need to in order to minimize the human impact on global warming?
I thought being conservative meant playing it safe. Isn't playing it safe making sure there's no doubt we're doing everything we can to conserve the world?
piqaboo wrote: "acknowledge the risks and be prepared to mitigate the damage if our conservative approach is wrong"
And so far as I can tell, that is not an option the administration is taking.
Instead, they are categorically denying that industry/human density etc could in any way be affecting the environment. And that we know from other fields is a false assumption.
piqaboo wrote: I disagree that my analogies are false.
piqaboo wrote: I agree that computer models are changeable and are at the hypothesis stage. Using one is not "science by consensus". Its doing science by model, trial and error. That’s pretty standard. The way your Dr decides if you need your prostate hole-punched or not is based on a similar sort of model, tho of less complexity. It includes such fuzzy factors as your age, your race, your family history insofar as you know it. And then it operates on %.
piqaboo wrote: There are models that show global warming is caused by us, others that think its "normal". I think there are none that conclude that a change in mean climate wont have a negative effect on us all (except me, I’m buying that land in Siberia, and some in Alaska in case of immigration issues -just as soon as my rich uncle dies and leaves me enough money).
piqaboo wrote: No response means the gov't would not have imposed emissions standards at all lo these many years since. Do you feel, Shap and BigJon, that overall the US economy suffered because the feds insisted on improving mpg?
BigJon@Work wrote: What's your response to this? 75% loss doesn't sound too wise to me.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110008626
OperaTenor wrote: I keep forgetting Shap and BigJon are Siamese twins. I wish I had the luxury of someone to proxy post replies to posts addressed to me.
piqaboo wrote: your post above is gonna take some time to answer because you argue the definition of every vocabulary word I use. Since Science by Consensus was my phrase, you might one day wonder what I mean by it, but instead you've declared your own definition as being one where a group of scientists look at a number of conflicting studies, and draw a conclusion based on those that agree, and you decry that approach.
piqaboo wrote: You decry model building in general, except where it suits your needs. I don't know how you think those models got made, but I can assure you that there is constant argument in the field of cancer about relative degrees of significance. You are just not aware of it.
piqaboo wrote: Re the article. I just got to reading it. It has good points, bad points, and areas that contradict what you say you are for, so I wonder what your take on it is. What is "75%" in reference to? Response to it will also have to wait.
The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.
As the first national report on the state of the environment said, achieving our stated goal of sustainable development requires the integration of ecological thinking into all our social and economic planning. A naïve faith in the magic of the market or the power of growth is no substitute for considered policies that nurture our natural and social systems. Propaganda units like the Institute of Public Affairs fund the travel of people like Lomborg to muddy the water and obscure the harsh reality that we are not using our natural resources sustainably. The facts show that we desperately need a new approach. Trusting business and the magic of markets has caused the problem; it cannot solve it, even in principle.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]