[QUOTE=kifler]
But the AP reported it had shrunk in 2002?
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/09/55482
[/QUOTE]
It’s grown since then. If you actually read the article, it attributes that temporary shrinking to temperature flucuations.
You’re not really fighting fair here, Bricker. I, amongst others, have pointed out to you the distinction between scientific (quantified) levels of assurance and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” demands you are making. In a legalistic setting, that makes perfect sense, one is guilty or not guilty, not 90% guilty. But that approach is not applicable here. Evolution is not 100% proven. By their very nature, such things as quantum mechanics cannot be 100% proven.
Such an approach is logical, but not reasonable.
[QUOTE=kifler]
Oh, then Channel 4 Meterologist chimes in: http://www.todaystmj4.com/bloggers/briangotter/8872172.html
May I remind you, your job is to tell us the weather, not diagnose engineering flaws. That being said, kindly stop prepetuating this stupid notion that Global Warming will cause us all to die because the Earth will simply cave in upon itself.
[/QUOTE]
I am certainly not an engineer, but doesn’t Minnesota experience relatively mild summers? I only ask because in Michigan our summers are usually in the mid 80’s. When it trickles into the 90’s or heaven forbid the mid-90’s, the universe collapses and everyone is urged to stay indoors and remain cool (no pun intended).
What is the typical summer in Minnesota? Was this summer unusual?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Oh, well then.
Sorry. Since you’ve explained so well why it doesn’t work this way, I guess I have no reasonable argumenrt left.
Hey! Wait a second! You didn’t explain it at all.
You just made an unsupported assertion that it doesn’t work this way.
[/QUOTE]
Sowwies! Knowing of your intelligence, I naively assumed a simple contradiction would be sufficient to call your attention to the unfathomable asstardery of ASSUMING A ONE-TO-ONE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROBABILITY OF A HORRIBLE LIVES-THREATENING DISASTER AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT SHOULD BE SPENT TO PREVENT IT. Not to mention the assumption that an assessment of the dollar value of the damage of such a disaster is the most relevant measure of said damage.
Got your chalk? Good. Now write on the blackboard 500 times: “The global environment is not an insurance business. Actuarial tables are irrelevant.”
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You’re not really fighting fair here, Bricker. I, amongst others, have pointed out to you the distinction between scientific (quantified) levels of assurance and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” demands you are making. In a legalistic setting, that makes perfect sense, one is guilty or not guilty, not 90% guilty. But that approach is not applicable here. Evolution is not 100% proven. By their very nature, such things as quantum mechanics cannot be 100% proven.
Such an approach is logical, but not reasonable.
[/QUOTE]
I’m willing to accept that it’s 90% proven… and then ACT like it’s 90% proven. You’re asking me to do … what? Accept that it’s 90% proven and then act like it’s 100% proven?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Sowwies! Knowing of your intelligence, I naively assumed a simple contradiction would be sufficient to call your attention to the unfathomable asstardery of ASSUMING A ONE-TO-ONE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROBABILITY OF A HORRIBLE LIVES-THREATENING DISASTER AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT SHOULD BE SPENT TO PREVENT IT. Not to mention the assumption that an assessment of the dollar value of the damage of such a disaster is the most relevant measure of said damage.
[/quote]
Why, exactly? We do it every day. We don’t spend a billion dollars making cars completely safe, because cars would be priced out of existence. We accept that people will die in cars that could have been saved by more expensive safety deatures; we draw a line based on cost.
And we do the same for planes, for bridge maintenance, for a zillion other things. That’s how the world works.
I don’t agree. They are precisely and completely relevant.
And this reaction of yours is one of the reasons I must fight against my own stereotyping of liberals as cloudy-minded, impractical dreamers that cannot be trusted to make rational decisions in government.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
So my position is: we should undertake whatever measures make economic sense, given the best data available to us right now.
[/QUOTE]
And if we aren’t just talking economic losses? If we’re talking the loss of life, how is that measured economically?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I just want to know why it’s so predictable that all the people claiming it hasn’t been proven are Republicans. I don’t understand the correlation.
Edited to add: I’m sure someone will quibble with “all” but it’s damned close to all.
[/QUOTE]
Good Lord, I will quibble with this as a Green Republican. The currently leading Republican candidate believes Global Warming is being affect by humans and that we can do something about it. I realize we are a minority in our party, but yes, Please do not say all. I believe McCain is also on the greener side. This I am not sure of however.
He talks very little about this issue as it is out of step with the mainstream of the party, but he has on occasion talked about Green Energy solutions and more nuclear power to combat global warming. When he was still only a Mayor, he talked about reducing gas consumption to both help the environment and reduce dependency of foreign oil that “fuels” terrorism.
Mlees & Bricker, what would it take to convince you that we should be trying to reduce the emission of gases that contribute to Global Warming? It sounds like nothing would convince you.
Jim
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m willing to accept that it’s 90% proven… and then ACT like it’s 90% proven. You’re asking me to do … what? Accept that it’s 90% proven and then act like it’s 100% proven?
[/QUOTE]
From a practical standpoint, there isn’t much difference. That 90% confidence carries a certain error in it. I don’t know what that error actually is, but any characterization of that error would, itself, be somewhat arbitrary (the error would have to reflect some confidence level).
90% is as good as it gets, +/-. That’s not really the problem, Bricker. The problem is what will happen 50 years from now. On that, there is great disagreement. Are the sea levels going to rise 2" or 20"? How much do we have to reduce greenhouse gases to make a difference? What if we do everything we can, and China and India do nothing? Our confidence level on any of those things is not very good.
Has anyone ever actually tested the global warming theory with a big tank, a heat lamp, a thermometer, and some CO2?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Good Lord, I will quibble with this as a Green Republican. The currently leading Republican candidate believes Global Warming is being affect by humans and that we can do something about it.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say all Republicans are deniers, I said that it seems all deniers are Republican.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
90% is as good as it gets, +/-. That’s not really the problem, Bricker. The problem is what will happen 50 years from now. On that, there is great disagreement. Are the sea levels going to rise 2" or 20"? How much do we have to reduce greenhouse gases to make a difference? What if we do everything we can, and China and India do nothing? Our confidence level on any of those things is not very good.
[/QUOTE]
Those are good questions, but shouldn’t some countries step up and take a leadership role on Global Warming? Isn’t there money to be made in producing a good reliable alternative to current ICE engine cars and cleaner Coal plants and safer Nuclear Plants? Shouldn’t we be one of those countries?
If we are part of the solution, will it not be easier to put pressure and offer help and support to still developing nations to clean up themselves? Won’t better and cheaper Wind Power and Solar Power help nations without a good infrastructure of electrical generation and distribution? Is there really a down side in the long term to following the 12 - 14 steps to reduce carbon and methane emissions?
Jim
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I didn’t say all Republicans are deniers, I said that it seems all deniers are Republican.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I misunderstood, but of course many are Libertarians and not ‘wimpy’ Republicans. 
Jim
Wasn’t it the “hippies” that tried to put an end to nuclear power? Now they’re begging for it?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And if we aren’t just talking economic losses? If we’re talking the loss of life, how is that measured economically?
[/QUOTE]
Are you truly that naive? We undertake similar calculations every day that involve human life. Car safety standards, which I mention above. Have you thought about what goes into deciding how safe to make cars? Do you not understand that it’s a balance of dollars for safety features against lives lost?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
…Bricker**, what would it take to convince you that we should be trying to reduce the emission of gases that contribute to Global Warming? It sounds like nothing would convince you.
[/QUOTE]
What? where do you get that?
I’m all for measures that would reduce carbon footprints, provided they make financial sense.
To make financial sense, I must see that that implementing the measure has a likelihood of success commensurate with its cost.
[QUOTE=kifler]
Wasn’t it the “hippies” that tried to put an end to nuclear power? Now they’re begging for it?
[/QUOTE]
Actually most of the “old school” members of the Green movement (or old Hippies) are still against Nuclear power. I have always felt safe nuclear power should be embraced and this has put me at odds with the older generation in the groups I belong to and work with.
I do share concerns with nuclear waste and commercial control of nuclear plants, but we should be able to get past these issues.
Jim
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Are you truly that naive? We undertake similar calculations every day that involve human life. Car safety standards, which I mention above. Have you thought about what goes into deciding how safe to make cars? Do you not understand that it’s a balance of dollars for safety features against lives lost?
[/QUOTE]
I want to know your metric. I want to know whose deaths you think are okay to make sure that “business interests” are protected.
See, I can choose whether to buy a car and risk my life driving it. You don’t get to force me into an unsafe car. How is that the same thing as you fucking up the world?
There’s a difference between not being able to remove all risk and actively killing people.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I want to know your metric. I want to know whose deaths you think are okay to make sure that “business interests” are protected.
See, I can choose whether to buy a car and risk my life driving it. You don’t get to force me into an unsafe car. How is that the same thing as you fucking up the world?
[/QUOTE]
Because we have a system in this country, jsgoddess, where the voters get to decide things together. Now, you can choose any car you want that’s on the market, or none at all, but the safety standards imposed on all cars comes from the government, which comes from those voters.
When it comes to the environment, a shared resource, the same rules apply. We jointly get to select our leaders, who then decide things like regulations for carbon emission. If enough voters believe business interests should be protected, then we protect business interests.
The question that you ask above is meaningless… “Whose deaths” are okay with me? Let’s see… Agatha N. Murphy of San Diego. Beatrix Littleton of Boulder. Elmer Redmond of San Antonio. And Steven C. Grebbe of Sarasota. Those are the people whose deaths are okay with me. :rolleyes:
I don’t actually have a list of people whose deaths are okay with me. What I have is the adult, realistic acceptance that some percentage of people will die as a result of policies we adopt, no matter what. That’s ok with me, as a general principle, because it’s inescapable. If it’s not okay with you, I suggest living as a hermit somewhere on Mars, because it is indisputable, unchangeable, and evermore a part of this world.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
What? where do you get that?
I’m all for measures that would reduce carbon footprints, provided they make financial sense.
To make financial sense, I must see that that implementing the measure has a likelihood of success commensurate with its cost.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you want to see detailed reports on the cost of each aspect of reducing emissions and the additional benefits and losses these changes will make. That sounds fair.
A lot of this information is out there. The most common thread to the reports is that there is no silver bullet to fix the problem but different solutions for different areas and most aspects have their own separate concerns.
Improved Gas Mileage (CAFE standards) should be the simplest, and even this is a tough sell.
Additional Wind power farms are fought and yet the payback is clear.
Nuclear power can help but we still have not resolved the issues of waste and the fears of safety. (These can be addressed)
Clean Coal increases cost, but improves air quality significantly while fighting Global warming. Una has written many great post with good details on this issue. It is achievable without serious harm to the economy and our technology can then be sold to the Chinese, which would have an even greater impact on halting Global Warming.
Plug-in Hybrid cars, Electric Cars, Hydrogen Cars and Buses, additional electric mass transit are all achievable goals that should not hurt the economy at all and could boost our auto industry if we have the foresight to seriously undertake these challenges and not let Japan and China beat us out.
Increased Energy efficiency in appliances and lighting will be inexpensive changes that in the end will save consumers money.
Solar Panels are slowly getting cheaper and more efficient. We need some of the recent breakthroughs to become commercial as soon as possible.
Of course, there is always the nearly silver bullet as we continue to work towards Fusion Power Plants. Maybe we will see this in 50 years.
etc.
Another cost benefit, cleaner air and water will mean lower medical costs. A major impact on our economy.
Jim