Posted on 09/10/2006 12:35:39 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The Economist generally does a pretty good job of putting debates like this in perspective in a fairly balanced way. Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.
The cost that would be associated with action in this Pascal's wager is far below the cost of being wrong.
They've been promising us this and every winter ... the snow still comes
Now there is an ingelligent reply (/sarcasm)
Do you know the difference between climate and weather?
ping
Well aren't we in a testy mood tonight
The planet might go a little whacky...again. We aren't doing it; we can't stop it; it ain't Bush's fault.
Pascals Wager or, with India and China, Pascal's Flaw?
There is a much more cost-effective way to fight global warming that will have about the same effectiveness as the Kyoto accords - namely, a worldwide network of prayer circles led by shamans and wizards. In fact, at only a small marginal increase in cost, we could add tom-tom drummers to the prayer circles and boost their effectiveness by an order of magnitude. I guarantee you without fear of contradiction that it will have comparable results to Kyoto...
What do you menan? I don't understand it exactly.
It seems to me that China and India are cultures that might very well be convinced to adopt technologies that allow them to continue their economic growth without compromising the planet's potential to sustain it.
But they arent going to take the lead. To say they won't play ball just as a reason to do nothing is pretty poor logic and incredibly reckless.
Since we will still be using lumber , plastic and paper in that future world and probably just burying it after it's used the amount of carbon in the ecosystem in the real long run will more likely decrease making the world get colder! So enjoy our day in the sun rather than create some Gestapo like organization designed to stop it!
I do think the analogy is appropriate.
The Montreal Protocol is an example of preventing a man-made catastrophe.
The human economy has never been large enough to affect the global climate so there aren't past examples. Now it is. Comparing the past is like wondering why there was no fire insurance before humans discovered fire. Or why people living in mountains have no flood insurance.
Life is dangerous. I'm glad I have AC in the winter and hot water in the winter....and a place to stay out of the rain. I'm happy we use oil. Can you imagine what would happen if 7 billion people had to revert to cooking and heating with wood?
I'll take an interest when someone proves to me that 0.04% of the atmosphere can produce more than a negligible warming impact on the remaning 99.96%.
AC in the summer...I mean..
The earth's system is a balance. If you ever tilt a sensitive balance by .04% you see that it changes.
Good attempt to use a Rush /Exxon talking point though.
Can anyone here explain : what's wrong with summer edging out winter?
Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.
ROTFLMAO!
Global warming is nothing but pork for scientists and poiticians. Prove it exists.
The Pascal's Wager applies equally well for the wizard example as it does for Kyoto and its variants. It's hardly a sound basis on which to make decisions of enormous import and impact. A better basis would be "first, do no harm"...
Are you seriously saying you don't understand the potential consequences of a signficant change in the climate?
Droughts, extreme weather, uncertain growing seasons, floods, just to start with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.