Replies

This is the free for everyone leader that is on the website. There is a more in-depth story in for those with subscriptions.

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.

1 posted on 09/10/2006 12:35:40 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

"The cost that would be associated with action in this Pascal's wager is far below the cost of being wrong."

Given that the article states that climate has changed dramatically, and with absolutely NO HUMAN INFLUENCES IN THE PAST, on what basis do you justify human changes being suddenly so significant?

Your analogy argument using insurance costs is best seen in terms of buying a policy alleging to insure against fire where there are no data regarding future fire frequencies or intensities, where there are no data regarding fire protection mechanisms, and there there is absolutely no fire suppression mechanism possible ( barring Divine Intervention on the behalf of the insured).

Not a policy with much appeal to any but the socialism impaired, would be my assumption.

Regarding your statement: "Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.", I can only ask that you add a keyboard alert to such posts in the future. I nearly spilled my coffee laughing at that line.

As for spending money to read such trash, may I suggest keeping your money securely in your bank (or other investments) and Google-ing climate papers by Dr. Patrick Michaels? Also read Professor Linzden (MIT). More data, no Libroid BS factor, peer reviewed, and available free.

59 posted on 09/10/2006 7:27:40 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

"Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming."

Fifty million years ago Wyoming would have been on the equator.

63 posted on 09/10/2006 9:24:27 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction.

The liberal mindset at its finest.

64 posted on 09/10/2006 9:26:33 AM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Humans thinking that they can adjust the gasses in the atmosphere by ANY MEANS is arrogant.. Just ONE volcano will change it again..

67 posted on 09/10/2006 12:14:46 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)

To: DaveLoneRanger

74 posted on 09/10/2006 6:11:02 PM PDT by bkwells (Liberals=Hypocrites)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794