48 replies to this topic

[SemiBizz]

Arch Crawford and I had a discussion about this a year ago, when the global warming scam video was going around on the net.

Here is an article published on Arch's website that you might find interesting...

http://www.crawfordp...aryDynamics.htm

[colion]

What is the one definite KNOWN is the earth and other planets have experienced 'runaway global warming', such as during the dinosaur era. So we DO KNOW what the potential maximum risk are don't we? and as much as I like hot climates, I find it hard to claim flooding 2/3rd of the earth as that did would be a 'positive'.

A sliding scale from minor to this maximum damage is 'the curve' of risk/cost I referred to, all that left is for 'us' to choose how much insurance premium we want to pay.

Mark

Your claim that 'one definite KNOWN' is 'runaway global warming' is simply an assumption that is not supported by an increasing number of scientists (at least 50% by the latest survey of the literature). In addition, there are a number of folks, including heavy hitters like Fairbridge, who point to decreased solar activity that started around 1996, resulting in cooling which should begin to be felt within a few more years as an extension of the flat period since that time. Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg. Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit.

[Rogerdodger]

True believers walk everywhere and don't use any electricity or toilet paper. Then the big diesel truck comes buy to pick up their box of empty plastic water bottles.

[EntropyModel]

What is the one definite KNOWN is the earth and other planets have experienced 'runaway global warming', such as during the dinosaur era. So we DO KNOW what the potential maximum risk are don't we? and as much as I like hot climates, I find it hard to claim flooding 2/3rd of the earth as that did would be a 'positive'.

A sliding scale from minor to this maximum damage is 'the curve' of risk/cost I referred to, all that left is for 'us' to choose how much insurance premium we want to pay.

Mark

Your claim that 'one definite KNOWN' is 'runaway global warming' is simply an assumption that is not supported by an increasing number of scientists (at least 50% by the latest survey of the literature). In addition, there are a number of folks, including heavy hitters like Fairbridge, who point to decreased solar activity that started around 1996, resulting in cooling which should begin to be felt within a few more years as an extension of the flat period since that time. Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg. Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit.

You failed to either read what I said, or perhaps lack the scientific training to comprehend its meaning?

I'll try to simply it further:

My 'claim', is not my claim, it is the known chemical science of green house effect. It is what keeps this planet warm.

Secondly, I said the runway effect is the worst case scenario. A Runaway green house effect is an exteme condition that can occur, for example on the planet Venus.

Thirdly, I suggested use of insurance risk/cost curve - using a best case to worst case risk/cost curve.


As to your claim:
"Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg.Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

What pain did we suffer and insurance did we take out against global cooling in the 1970's? none that I can remember or find?
Certainly I do know that the economic problems of the 1970 had mostly to do with well understood economic reasons, as any student of economic history should be aware - post vietnam, oil crisis, inflation part of K-cycle etc


As to how much premium we can afford, that is the question. I did not suggest we take out MAXIMUM insurance, I said 'we' in collective democracy will have to decide how to take out. You have the same decision with car or house insurance.

Mark(OEX) abvove suggested a good starting pointon this insurance curve i.e. minimal or free action...and yes Mark(OEX) I agree with that. I would suggest we start with minimal cost insurance, allowing us more time to determine probabilities of outcomes. Because to make that decision, what we need from scientist is not 'i'm right, your wrong' - as per current debate, but PROBABILITIES of OUTCOMES -
that is infact how real scientists work. But, powerful groups with vested interests have used this issue to divide the public into waring faction...but I don't want to get off topic on that.


I've clearly stated, the science on BOTH sides cannot be proved currently. If i'm wrong on that, explain it to me, how would anyone actually prove the science of either the skeptics or pro-global warming?
Using historical data - nope, data is disputed by many scientists
Using Models - nope, models are disputed by many scientists

The science of the skeptic scientists is just as disputable as the pro, it suffers the same problems.
I've explained all this previously in posts, at great length I don't have the time/energy/motivation to repeat it here, but the bottom line is


- most people 'debating' this isssue don't have adequate science education to understand the issues, and thus default to trusting so called experts, something like the following:

Fred the Skeptic: I don't believe in global warming..its a loony liberal lefting conspiracy, I'm going to look for article's on google and scientists who 'prove' it doesn't exist.
Joe the GLobal warmist: I know global warming is real and the right wing nut jobs conspire to hide the truth, I'm going to look for article's on google and scientists who 'prove' it exist.

Fred and Joe then find a media or internet pages or message board to endless talk across each other, posting articles to support their view, getting wound up etc ( just as the matrix wants).



More important even than not understanding the issues, is most people don't understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and are misled into believing that science is about right/wrong answers, it isn't, its about probabilities and evolving understanding. Geez, even the most foolproof right/wrong of Newtons law of Gravity turns out to be 'wrong' due to Einsteins Special Relativity..

*** nothing is sacred in science, everything is challengable, there is NEVER 100% CONSENSUS and NEVER SHOULD BE IF SCIENTISTS ARE BEING SCIENTISTS ***

Note. but unfortunately, most 'scientists' are not 'being scientists', they are pimps for whoever pays for their research.


To be clear, the point of my post was to explain MY position in response to the poll, not to argue with Fred's or Joe's because I've explained why I believe that's pointless.


Mark

Edited by entropy, 06 March 2008 - 03:11 PM.

[stocks]

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.



World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

http://www.americant...o_schmyoto.html

[Rogerdodger]

"You ...perhaps lack the scientific training to comprehend its meaning?"
.
.
.
"Converting science into an authoritarian belief system is, however, dangerous not just to those whom it demonizes but, eventually, to the health of the institution itself."
The Dangerous Rise of Carbon Fundamentalism
http://www.greenbiz....fm?NewsID=36591

Edited by Rogerdodger, 06 March 2008 - 11:33 PM.

[colion]

What is the one definite KNOWN is the earth and other planets have experienced 'runaway global warming', such as during the dinosaur era. So we DO KNOW what the potential maximum risk are don't we? and as much as I like hot climates, I find it hard to claim flooding 2/3rd of the earth as that did would be a 'positive'.

A sliding scale from minor to this maximum damage is 'the curve' of risk/cost I referred to, all that left is for 'us' to choose how much insurance premium we want to pay.

Mark

Your claim that 'one definite KNOWN' is 'runaway global warming' is simply an assumption that is not supported by an increasing number of scientists (at least 50% by the latest survey of the literature). In addition, there are a number of folks, including heavy hitters like Fairbridge, who point to decreased solar activity that started around 1996, resulting in cooling which should begin to be felt within a few more years as an extension of the flat period since that time. Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg. Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit.

You failed to either read what I said, or perhaps lack the scientific training to comprehend its meaning?

Sorry to break your bubble, but I did read what you wrote and, in addition, I would be glad to match you degree for degree so find another rock to throw.

I'll try to simply it further:

My 'claim', is not my claim, it is the known chemical science of green house effect. It is what keeps this planet warm.

Wrong. Greenhouse gases, as has been know for ages, do in fact contribute to warming of the atmosphere but they are a minor factor in affecting the earth's temperature which has been warming for hundreds of years as is normally the case when one comes out of an ice age.

Secondly, I said the runway effect is the worst case scenario. A Runaway green house effect is an exteme condition that can occur, for example on the planet Venus.

Extreme is the understatement of the day. A good example of how a little bit of knowledge can lead to a fair amont of irrationality.

Thirdly, I suggested use of insurance risk/cost curve - using a best case to worst case risk/cost curve.
As to your claim:
"Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg.Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

What pain did we suffer and insurance did we take out against global cooling in the 1970's? none that I can remember or find?
Certainly I do know that the economic problems of the 1970 had mostly to do with well understood economic reasons, as any student of economic history should be aware - post vietnam, oil crisis, inflation part of K-cycle etc

A bit of sarcasim that flew over your head. No we did not suffer any pain or take out any insurance (however that is defined) in spite of cries to the contrary from the global coolers who today have morphed into global warmers. The simple fact is that the earth has been warming since the last ice age - that is what happens when one leaves an ice age. As a scientist you should know that the issue is not global warming but rather climate change. The climate always changes, always has and always will. In fact, as you know, an increasing number of scientists now see signs of cooling. Any clue how cool? Time to get ready for global cooling panic again. In any case, the premium for going down the adaption road is far smaller than that of the "stop global warming" or "stop global cooling" routes and yet handles climate change - both cooling and warming.


As to how much premium we can afford, that is the question. I did not suggest we take out MAXIMUM insurance, I said 'we' in collective democracy will have to decide how to take out. You have the same decision with car or house insurance.

The "insurance" that is needed is not what global warmers bloviate about but rather a sensibile strategy for adapting. We ain't gonna change the climate so learn to love it. Such "insurance" should incorporate the simple fact that most believe that earth is a finite volume and, therefore, stuff like hydrocarbons are not finite. Such strategies would also partially satisfy the global warmers but be one step ahead when global cooling hits. The importance of taking the "insurance" question out of the global warmer's argument to change or control the climate is that starting from that perspective one ends up at the wrong political outcome - for starters we don't need another Kyoto fiasco as an endpoint.

I've clearly stated, the science on BOTH sides cannot be proved currently. If i'm wrong on that, explain it to me, how would anyone actually prove the science of either the skeptics or pro-global warming?
Using historical data - nope, data is disputed by many scientists
Using Models - nope, models are disputed by many scientists

Right. There are no verifiable models and therefore no way to estimate the effect of human activity on climate. Given that why all the unjustified words calling for change?

The science of the skeptic scientists is just as disputable as the pro, it suffers the same problems.
I've explained all this previously in posts, at great length I don't have the time/energy/motivation to repeat it here, but the bottom line is

Previous posts have for most provided convincing evidence that the global warming claims are way overblown. To be sure, most of the articles are of an overview nature as full blown scientific studies would not be read by many but they are there and one can dig deeper if interested. Of course, one does not see very well when wearing blinders.


- most people 'debating' this isssue don't have adequate science education to understand the issues, and thus default to trusting so called experts, something like the following:

This is a typical veiled argument from those that are over their head and at the same time attempt to elevate themselves.

More important even than not understanding the issues, is most people don't understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and are misled into believing that science is about right/wrong answers, it isn't, its about probabilities and evolving understanding. Geez, even the most foolproof right/wrong of Newtons law of Gravity turns out to be 'wrong' due to Einsteins Special Relativity..

*** nothing is sacred in science, everything is challengable, there is NEVER 100% CONSENSUS and NEVER SHOULD BE IF SCIENTISTS ARE BEING SCIENTISTS ***

At last, we agree to a large extent on something. This would be a good place to end except there is somemore drivel below.

Note. but unfortunately, most 'scientists' are not 'being scientists', they are pimps for whoever pays for their research.

I assume that you agree that this applies to both global warmers and skeptics. In either case, however, it is a pitiful argument. One either can or cannot knock the research. No matter where the funding comes from the research either stands on its own or it does not. To attack people because of their funding (most skeptics are not funded to any great extent, if at all, by organizations that the global warmers hate) is just throwing up a smokescreen because no counter argument exists. How many global warmers have had their research attacked because they are supported by governments that have political positions which are in concert with the the global warming hysteria? None that I am aware of. If so, isn't that a bit odd?


Mark

[EntropyModel]

You failed to either read what I said, or perhaps lack the scientific training to comprehend its meaning?

Sorry to break your bubble, but I did read what you wrote

I said EITHER you read it or you didn't understand it - OK must be that then. Having read your red inked, insult laden, incoherant reply, I still don't believe you understand it, but I have tried to fathom some sense into your reply, though in doing so i'm rapidly losing the will to live.

and, in addition, I would be glad to match you degree for degree so find another rock to throw.

I threw no rock, that you perceived one I can only summize you are a very thin skinned, overly sensitive and reactive individual.
As for 'matching degrees', shall we stand 30 paces and draw revolvers?
Boy, I hope you have more self control in the 'real world'.

Infact, I merely posted my view in response to the poll, and then YOU chose to 'throw rocks' as you'd see it at my view.

I'll try to simply it further:
My 'claim', is not my claim, it is the known chemical science of green house effect. It is what keeps this planet warm.

Wrong. Greenhouse gases, as has been know for ages, do in fact contribute to warming of the atmosphere but they are a minor factor in affecting the earth's temperature which has been warming for hundreds of years as is normally the case when one comes out of an ice age.

Your statement makes me right.

You first claimed green house warming didn't exist, then when I point out that it certainly does exist, you turn 180degree's and agree with me ( yet claim I am 'wrong' ) , but change your claim to -
-but they are a minor factor in affecting the earth's temperature

Incidently, that's an illogical level of certainty for someone who claims such scientific certainty on climate matters is impossible.


Secondly, I said the runway effect is the worst case scenario. A Runaway green house effect is an exteme condition that can occur, for example on the planet Venus.

Extreme is the understatement of the day. A good example of how a little bit of knowledge can lead to a fair amont of irrationality.

Yes, worst case scenario = extreme, clearly you agree then that runaway green house effect COULD occur, which was my point.


Thirdly, I suggested use of insurance risk/cost curve - using a best case to worst case risk/cost curve.
As to your claim:
"Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg.Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

What pain did we suffer and insurance did we take out against global cooling in the 1970's? none that I can remember or find?
Certainly I do know that the economic problems of the 1970 had mostly to do with well understood economic reasons, as any student of economic history should be aware - post vietnam, oil crisis, inflation part of K-cycle etc

A bit of sarcasim that flew over your head.



Indeed, sadly I can't tell when your being sarcastic or serious I must admit.

No we did not suffer any pain or take out any insurance (however that is defined) in spite of cries to the contrary from the global coolers who today have morphed into global warmers.

Oh, OK, so when you said:
" Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

..you weren't 'making things up', but being 'sarcastic', that must be a clever use of the word i'm not familiar with...um, and THAT would be sarcasm as I understand its meaning.

The simple fact is that the earth has been warming since the last ice age - that is what happens when one leaves an ice age. As a scientist you should know that the issue is not global warming but rather climate change.

No, the issue is as I and most people are discussing global warming, and specifically, IS MAN causing global warming via green house effect. That you don't believe that is the issue were discussing here explains alot., hence Mark(OEX) poll question.

The climate always changes, always has and always will. In fact, as you know, an increasing number of scientists now see signs of cooling. Any clue how cool? Time to get ready for global cooling panic again. In any case, the premium for going down the adaption road is far smaller than that of the "stop global warming" or "stop global cooling" routes and yet handles climate change - both cooling and warming.

The issue is posible MAN made effect and taking out insurance against them.
If these scientists who see 'global cooling' can produce peer reviewed scientific papers of how MAN is CAUSING it, can quantify the probability of it, and its effect, then it would be something to look at for sure.

Please show me some links to such papers for review, and I will gladly read them.
If the science is sound, we can then add the 'cooling worry' to the worry list along with the risk of man made global warming.



As to how much premium we can afford, that is the question. I did not suggest we take out MAXIMUM insurance, I said 'we' in collective democracy will have to decide how to take out. You have the same decision with car or house insurance.

The "insurance" that is needed is not what global warmers bloviate about but rather a sensibile strategy for adapting. We ain't gonna change the climate so learn to love it.


Obviously false. We CAN change the climate IF it turns out man is having a causal effect on it, that is the ENTIRE ISSUE.

We also won't learn to love it, if as per EVERY CANONICAL FEEDBACK SYSTEM in the real world, the warming system enters a feedback loop aka runaway warming or tipping points.

The study of control systems reveals that ALL natural systems exhibit steady state( a long term trend) and transient signals(fluctuating cycles than feed into the trend, and eventually change it). The tricky point is where the transient cycles 'tip' the longer term trend. In natural system, this is NEVER SMOOTH, it occurs with wild volalitility.

IF Man is causing warming ( assign whatever probability to that risk you want), THEN the science of control systems tells us that there is a finite risk of high volatility causing runway effect, and likely these would be a series of 'tipping points'.

You the contradict yourself below. You say insurance is unecessary, but now you say:
Such "insurance" should incorporate the simple fact that most believe that earth is a finite volume and, therefore, stuff like hydrocarbons are not finite. Such strategies would also partially satisfy the global warmers but be one step ahead when global cooling hits.

OK great, please explain in practical term what kind of action this would mean.

The importance of taking the "insurance" question out of the global warmer's argument to change or control the climate is that starting from that perspective one ends up at the wrong political outcome - for starters we don't need another Kyoto fiasco as an endpoint.

Oh, now your against insurance again...I think...maybe your being 'sarcastic' ?
Yes, Kyoto is a fiasco, we agree on that.


I've clearly stated, the science on BOTH sides cannot be proved currently. If i'm wrong on that, explain it to me, how would anyone actually prove the science of either the skeptics or pro-global warming?
Using historical data - nope, data is disputed by many scientists
Using Models - nope, models are disputed by many scientists

Right. There are no verifiable models and therefore no way to estimate the effect of human activity on climate. Given that why all the unjustified words calling for change?

OK, i've explained why twice and I'm repeating myself again, but lets try again. My words are about assessing the risk so we can asess insurance that man IS causing global warming through green house gases.
I don't know if we are, but my words are about:
1. Asking for a number, like OK, there's a 1 in 100 chance man is causing global warming through green house gases.
Who would I ask> - I'd ask ALL SCIENTIST on ALL SIDES of the issue, that can produce a peer reviewable paper ( no consensus required, just produce a paper). ..yep let everyone have a say.

2. I'd let the insurance experts in risk assessment take all those different probabilities, and come up with a risk curve, like they do for all natural distaters.

I don't know how to make my words any clearer than this, you just don't seem to grasp the idea of probabilities and risk, if you trade, I find that bizaar, perhaps some numbers will help?

I'll make a total guess(not really, most times this is true), we'd get something like this:
. A normally distributed curve of scientisits assessments
- with the 'mean' assessment of the order of 1 in 10 ( man made global warming)
- with outliers at 2S.D. of close to zero risk, and 2 S.D. for those near near certainty of mans causal effect.
- We'd also get a similar distribution of potential damage assessment.

What would 'we' do with that, I said that is the only question to me. If we claim to be democratic, we'd try to explain these risk/insurance cost curves to the voting public, and vote on 'how much risk/insurance we want to take'.


The science of the skeptic scientists is just as disputable as the pro, it suffers the same problems.
I've explained all this previously in posts, at great length I don't have the time/energy/motivation to repeat it here, but the bottom line is

Previous posts have for most provided convincing evidence that the global warming claims are way overblown. To be sure, most of the articles are of an overview nature as full blown scientific studies would not be read by many but they are there and one can dig deeper if interested. Of course, one does not see very well when wearing blinders.

You clearly haven't been reading MY posts. My posts having been making the same points as above.
But you are right about blinders, and often people aren't aware they're wearing them - which relates to my avatar.


- most people 'debating' this isssue don't have adequate science education to understand the issues, and thus default to trusting so called experts, something like the following:

This is a typical veiled argument from those that are over their head and at the same time attempt to elevate themselves.

In my case its a logical axiom. You cannot discuss the validatity of 2+2=4, if you do not understand the rules of addition.

If you want to believe that most people understand the scientific disciplines necessary to understand these issues that's your perogative Colion, I admire your faith in your fellow man. But my opinion( that's all it is like yours) is based on my experience, is that MOST people do not have a firm grasp of for example: probability theory, control systems, choas, scientific method etc


More important even than not understanding the issues, is most people don't understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and are misled into believing that science is about right/wrong answers, it isn't, its about probabilities and evolving understanding. Geez, even the most foolproof right/wrong of Newtons law of Gravity turns out to be 'wrong' due to Einsteins Special Relativity..

*** nothing is sacred in science, everything is challengable, there is NEVER 100% CONSENSUS and NEVER SHOULD BE IF SCIENTISTS ARE BEING SCIENTISTS ***

At last, we agree to a large extent on something. This would be a good place to end except there is somemore drivel below.


Oh did we...quick, I will change my view. ...just kidding.

Yes, lets look at more of my 'drivel'...I bet your being sarcastic again aren't you?..surely you won't just hurl inane insults.

Note. but unfortunately, most 'scientists' are not 'being scientists', they are pimps for whoever pays for their research.

I assume that you agree that this applies to both global warmers and skeptics.

Yes I do, that's why I said it over and over.

In either case, however, it is a pitiful argument.

Oh no, is it? darn I thought I was doing so well....but it turns out I was just pitiful. ..lucky you came along to put me right eh.

One either can or cannot knock the research.

Well, I can't disagree with you there Einstein.

No matter where the funding comes from the research either stands on its own or it does not.

Your on a role, impecable logic...but there again, don't listen to me I'm pitiful.

To attack people because of their funding (most skeptics are not funded to any great extent, if at all, by organizations that the global warmers hate) is just throwing up a smokescreen because no counter argument exists.

Darn, you lost me again. My point was that scientists often lose objectively because their paymasters lean on them - think pharama' and their drug tests, this is pretty widely known, but if its news to you, sorry to break the news that scientists are not always pure snowy white moral giants.

</SPAN>All the best Colion, and I hope i've made myself clearer.
Mark.

[colion]

(Sorry about that - hit the wrong button) OK, Mark. I'll take your hand and lead you into the promised land because otherwise you will wander in the wilderness of ignorance forever. 1.

[colion]

(Again sorry about that. I think the TAB key is sending the message before it is done and after that I can't get back in to edit or delete. Last try) OK, Mark. I'll take your hand and lead you into the promised land because otherwise you will wander in the wilderness of ignorance forever. 1. You are a master of the "in your face" style which does not impress many except those across the pond where is common practice. In any case, don't kid yourself. Nobody is bashful around here. If someone reads something and does not understand it clarification is requested. So, to be perfectly clear your rantings were read and understood. You have used the not read and understood approach before and it is getting a bit stale. Claims that those who do not understand (read agree) being due to a lack of scientific knowledge is typical of positions taken by politicians and others not schooled in the subject. A veiled argument at best. Not very impressive. 2. Do you have a problem understanding what was written? Where did I claim that greenhouse warming did not exist? In fact, what was said was that "Very few say that human activities and the infamous greenhouse effect do not produce warming." In your convoluted world does this translate to greenhouse gases do not produce warming? Yes, you are wrong to claim that the greenhouse effect keeps the planet warm because this implies that it is a major factor which it is not. 3. Yes, greenhouse gases and specifically those due to human activities are only a minor factor affecting climate change. Although you try to dodge the bullet this statement is consistent with the previous. One can only arrive at your upside down conclusion by an illogical thought process. 4. The widely accepted negative feedback in the climate system (plug that into your control theory) reduces a run-away greenhouse effect to essential zero. Could it occur? One never says never. However, only an activist would grasp at such a straw in pushing their position. It would be very unwise to consider that scenario when considering what to do. 5. You want to take out insurance (whatever that is) to ensure that we don't either burn up or freeze. All of this is based on the belief that human activities significantly affect climate. At best, giving your position the benefit of the doubt, there is no convincing evidence that human activity is or is not causing climate change. In fact, a recent count of the number of published papers for and against indicates that it is a draw. However, when one looks at the trajectory of believers/non-believers it is clear that the pendulum is shifting toward non-believers. Absent a convincing do-or-die argument, any insurance would have to have a neutral to positive effect on the economy and life style in order to be politically acceptable. On the other hand, following an adaptation strategy would I believe result in positive effects with a smaller premium. To be sure, you might call adaptation insurance, but to me the implications are quite different because insurance in your case is directed toward the impossible task of modifying climate and the other to the feasible reality of adapting to climate change as man has done in the past and will do so in the future. 6. As for cooling, you are obviously unaware of the scientific literature regarding the natural causes for climate change. This research has been around for many decades and studies continue at an increasing rate. Natural causes are at the root and are largely responsible for coming out of the ice age and possible going back into a cooling period which some argue has already started. In fact, one of the convincing arguments about the small effect of human activity on climate change comes from studies of what happened between cool and warm periods. More can be said but it is not worthwhile taking the time to do so. I'm not in the conversion business so you can rant away but I'm outta this thread.

Edited by colion, 14 March 2008 - 11:25 AM.