Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[badnarik]

That's a decent analogy, although I think the patient is going to do what he wants unless you lock him up. The doctors need a better diagnosis, and need to figure out the real prognosis, and, if the prognosis dictates, they need to find a new treatment.

[Bingo]

I think it's a terrible analogy

A good analogy would capture the spirit of what is actually going on. There is concern over something that may or may not be happening. Even the best minds on the proponent side admit that their models are far from proven and there are infinite changing parameters that need to be guesstimated on an ongoing basis.

This isn't a pack a day guy with three doctors maintaining that lung cancer and smoking doesn't exist.

Hell with global science and some recent doubt on numbers I'm not sure they can even safely prove the guy is sick at all.

So you can take out his lungs because he's smoking and doesn't have any symptoms that can be pinned down, or you can just suggest he stop smoking.

That's your analogy ... why do evasive surgery on a guy that nobody knows for sure is sick, when some pretty obvious and logical preventative measures can be taken now and avoid everyone a big life threatening mistake.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think it's a terrible analogy

A good analogy would capture the spirit of what is actually going on. There is concern over something that may or may not be happening. Even the best minds on the proponent side admit that their models are far from proven and there are infinite changing parameters that need to be guesstimated on an ongoing basis.

This isn't a pack a day guy with three doctors maintaining that lung cancer and smoking doesn't exist.

Hell with global science and some recent doubt on numbers I'm not sure they can even safely prove the guy is sick at all.

So you can take out his lungs because he's smoking and doesn't have any symptoms that can be pinned down, or you can just suggest he stop smoking.

That's your analogy ... why do evasive surgery on a guy that nobody knows for sure is sick, when some pretty obvious and logical preventative measures can be taken now and avoid everyone a big life threatening mistake.

Sure, I guess if you ignore the rising temperatures, the loss of pack ice, the increasing level of the seas, the expanding deserats around the world, the increasing polutants in the air, the continued loss of animal species because of changes in their eco systems, then yeah, there are no symptoms at all. The planet is a very healthy system and we can go about our business as normal.

[ken0042]

To continue on with Bingo's line of thinking and Lanny's anaolgy......

It's like NASA having issues with Astronats coughing and then falling over dead in space. So they pass a rule saying none of them are allowed be smokers before going into space. But it turns out the problem was with the seals on the spacecraft.

Or, another NASA thing. For decades they've been working on ways to make the heat resistant tiles stick to the hull better. Then one day when Columbia explodes, they take a closer look and notice that the problem all along has been chunks of foam falling off the spacecraft on liftoff.

[Burninator]

I like the analogy Lanny. While there is a group of people who are continually awaiting more evidence. Evidence that in their minds will say without a doubt, this is 100% what is happening and going to happen. For some in that group the evidence, to further your analogy, will only come in the form of the patient going into full cardiac arrest. Then we can say without a doubt that the patient has a heart problem.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Sure, I guess if you ignore the rising temperatures, the loss of pack ice, the increasing level of the seas, the expanding deserats around the world, the increasing polutants in the air, the continued loss of animal species because of changes in their eco systems, then yeah, there are no symptoms at all. The planet is a very healthy system and we can go about our business as normal.

See I don't think it's that simple

Of course I'm concerned with all of those things. I live no this planet now, don't plan on leaving soon, and have two kids. I'm not looking to roll back the clock to 1960's factory pollution, etc.

But there is debate, whether you choose to ignore or marginalize it or not, on every single thing you mentioned up above.

Some of the things, like this recent NASA rework, could have very serious implications to the rising temperature element of the argument, which is a big player on that side of the fence.

So no ... I don't think it's that simple.

I do hope that we continue to get more effecient, develop alternate fuels, waste less, take care of animal habitats, and all the while I'm also hoping that these global wamring fears were just that and really we're in a long term trend.

Either way, the Science just isn't in, not when one of the key speakers of said science has now admitted key mistakes and then run around the media acting like a child. Doesn't give me a secure feeling on the science at all.

Just suggesting some pause here that's it ... not trying to defend big business or pollution.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I like the analogy Lanny. While there is a group of people who are continually awaiting more evidence. Evidence that in their minds will say without a doubt, this is 100% what is happening and going to happen. For some in that group the evidence, to further your analogy, will only come in the form of the patient going into full cardiac arrest. Then we can say without a doubt that the patient has a heart problem.

Or ... they open up his chest to put in a new heart as a precaution, kill him in the process only to realize that it wasn't his heart at all, but chest pains due to a new supplement he's taking.

There are consequences both ways.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^ You will notice that my approach in the analogy was the common sense approach. Acknowledge the symptoms, take the simple approach to elimination of activities that may irritate those symptoms, and continue doing tests. Reducing the risk activities is probably the smart thing to do in the long run, so doing so while the patient has the motivation to do so makes sense. We should clean up our planet, so there is no harm in doing so. And I'm not concerned about the money being spent on something as noble as cleaning up the environment. The governments will spend the money irregardless of what the cause is. Better on the environment than on military expenditures or pork or on incentives to big oil.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Sure, I guess if you ignore the rising temperatures, the loss of pack ice, the increasing level of the seas, the expanding deserats around the world, the increasing polutants in the air, the continued loss of animal species because of changes in their eco systems, then yeah, there are no symptoms at all. The planet is a very healthy system and we can go about our business as normal.

You make the very incorrect assumption that the Earth free of humans would remain static. All evidence points to the contrary with many animal species coming and going over time, ice melting and forming, deserts being created and destroyed by geological movement and finally Earth temperatures rising and then falling and rising again etc.

[transplant99]

Sure, I guess if you ignore the rising temperatures,

I dont get this...who is ignoring things? The isue is not IF temps are rising or not, but why are they rising. Is it due to a natural cycle of things as has been proven to of happened in the past, or is man causing things to accelerate due to the burning of fossil fuels.

No one is ignoring anything Lanny...why even go there?

the loss of pack ice,

Been going on for a lot longer than man has been burning fuel

the increasing level of the seas,

Attributed to the melting of polar ice packs...and that seems to be a normal cycle of earths activities as above.

the expanding deserats around the world,

Again, part of the evolution of earth that is suspected to of taken place before man was even around.

the increasing polutants in the air,

Definately man made...no question and its been a burning topic for generations now. this is one point where man has to be blamed without question.

the continued loss of animal species because of changes in their eco systems

Also man made...but is it really tied to global warming?

The planet is a very healthy system and we can go about our business as normal.

Not as unhealthy as you seem to want people to believe. Normal practices should, and are, being questioned in regards to CO2 emissions and any relation to a warming climate....thats the way humans have done things forever. Changes happen...and this is no different as the proof lies in the research and development for alternative fuels. Is anyone really asking that this practice he stopped and we burn ONLY fossil fuels? No.

A bit of fear-mongering on your part IMO...there is a reason to question whats actually causing climate change and having a grasp on things before we run off and start applying a remedy for a sickness we arent sure exists.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Or ... they open up his chest to put in a new heart as a precaution, kill him in the process only to realize that it wasn't his heart at all, but chest pains due to a new supplement he's taking.

No, unless you're under the impression that our solutions to global warming will physically hurt the planet. A better analogy that you are probably getting at would be the patient spends his life savings, quits his job, and sells his house to pay for heart surgery. Only later to find out it the problems are due to his supplement.

There are consequences both ways.

I agree. You won't find me wanting to throw money blindly at the problem. But I do think we aren't doing enough in the meantime. And better steps can be taken to improve our situation before we take drastic steps. I'm sure you agree with that, but I think our difference will lie with what I think are small steps and you think are small steps.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

^^^^ You will notice that my approach in the analogy was the common sense approach. Acknowledge the symptoms, take the simple approach to elimination of activities that may irritate those symptoms, and continue doing tests. Reducing the risk activities is probably the smart thing to do in the long run, so doing so while the patient has the motivation to do so makes sense. We should clean up our planet, so there is no harm in doing so. And I'm not concerned about the money being spent on something as noble as cleaning up the environment. The governments will spend the money irregardless of what the cause is. Better on the environment than on military expenditures or pork or on incentives to big oil.

Always love when a guy comfortably lists his approach or opinion as commone sense.

Thanks! Good to know you think you're right, I had no idea

"We should clean up our planet, so there is no harm in doing so"

Where does that little statement differ from anything I've said. I've only mentioned some concern with the politics and the rigidity in the argument from the proponent side. I'm concerend that the focus on this topic has become so massive that every single other clearly defined and understood issue has been cast aside like yesterday's news. I'm worried that money is getting thrown at this topic with no real clear ideas on how to actually accomplish anything. I'm worried that leading economists continue to suggest that many of these policies won't actually do a thing for the environment but waste tax payer dollars.

So if you want to trickle all I've said down to me not wanting to do anything feel free, but some simple reading will show you that you may not be showing much common sense in doing so.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Always love when a guy comfortably lists his approach or opinion as commone sense.

Thanks! Good to know you think you're right, I had no idea

"We should clean up our planet, so there is no harm in doing so"

Where does that little statement differ from anything I've said. I've only mentioned some concern with the politics and the rigidity in the argument from the proponent side. I'm concerend that the focus on this topic has become so massive that every single other clearly defined and understood issue has been cast aside like yesterday's news. I'm worried that money is getting thrown at this topic with no real clear ideas on how to actually accomplish anything. I'm worried that leading economists continue to suggest that many of these policies won't actually do a thing for the environment but waste tax payer dollars.

So if you want to trickle all I've said down to me not wanting to do anything feel free, but some simple reading will show you that you man not be showing much common sense in doing so.

Jesus Bingo, nice over-reaction. I was agreeing with you and attempting to show that the analogy was not that far off your position. And careful about the common sense thing. That is always your claim and you stake that middle ground as yours, exclusively. But since you want to get all pissy I'll play with you.

So the leading economists are infallible, but the leading scientists are wrong and don't have a clue as to what is going on? Ironic since the leading economists are wrong more than they are right. If the economists were any more inaccurate they would be working for the Bush admin and planning the "success" of the Iraq war. So excuse me if I take anything an "economist" has to say with anything but a grain of salt the size of cattle feed salt lick. They don't have a clue about our economy let alone any other subject matter.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Jesus Bingo, nice over-reaction. I was agreeing with you and attempting to show that the analogy was not that far off your position. And careful about the common sense thing. That is always your claim and you stake that middle ground as yours, exclusively. But since you want to get all pissy I'll play with you.

Not true at all ... I don't think I've ever labeled an opionin of my own as right or common sense. I leave it at "I think", or "in my opinion" to stand on it's own.

Truth be known I am a non alarmist in almost everything in my life, and I think my opinion on things for the past ten years is consistent enough to prove that out. It's not a tactic or an act, it's a way of life, one that I've clearly kept to through all your bombastic jumps to the poles of every issue.

And Jesus Bingo? I've got enough hats to wear around here, I don't think I need that lofty of a title

Either way, if I misunderstood you I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So the leading economists are infallible, but the leading scientists are wrong and don't have a clue as to what is going on? Ironic since the leading economists are wrong more than they are right. If the economists were any more inaccurate they would be working for the Bush admin and planning the "success" of the Iraq war. So excuse me if I take anything an "economist" has to say with anything but a grain of salt the size of cattle feed salt lick. They don't have a clue about our economy let alone any other subject matter.

Agreed and may I say BING BING BING

Grain of salt is all I'm arguing. Look at what I said.
I'm worried that leading economists continue to suggest that many of these policies won't actually do a thing for the environment but waste tax payer dollars.
I didn't state they are proven right, infallable, or someone that we should trust above everyone else, but all you have to do is look at Kyoto expenditures and actual drop in carbon to know they have something there to talk about.

every expert on any topic should be questioned, and then requestioned and then requestioned some more. The economy like the climate is changing all the time, and with that more informatin is added and new theories are born.

But I'm not throwing my lot into either camp at this point because there is way too much up in the air, despite what Al Gore and his buddies claim.

[Azure]

Anything else you two want to talk about? Because I'd sure as hell start the thread just to read the comments.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anything else you two want to talk about? Because I'd sure as hell start the thread just to read the comments.

The beauty of a little history between two, huh?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The beauty of a little history between two, huh?

Pretty much.

Que the fotze comment....knew it was coming too.

[Flame On]

I guess the question is whether you believe there's enough unprovable risk (what ever the cause/fault) to take steps that may mean unprovable risk to economies.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I guess the question is whether you believe there's enough unprovable risk (what ever the cause/fault) to take steps that may mean unprovable risk to economies.

I don't think it takes much proof to look at a country's annual expenditure on things like Kyoto versus their reduction point in carbon emissions.

Money is being spent, and results are not being seen.

But other than that I agree, I'm certainly not in favour of doing nothing regardless of how much water the science holds. But pass the buck down to the consumers, the people with choices that put money back in the wheel.

Move up the light bulb ban, weight fees on garbage, Fotze's instant water value meter in your house ... these effect change. The macro stuff simply has not to this point.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think it takes much proof to look at a country's annual expenditure on things like Kyoto versus their reduction point in carbon emissions.

Money is being spent, and results are not being seen.

But other than that I agree, I'm certainly not in favour of doing nothing regardless of how much water the science holds. But pass the buck down to the consumers, the people with choices that put money back in the wheel.

Move up the light bulb ban, weight fees on garbage, Fotze's instant water value meter in your house ... these effect change. The macro stuff simply has not to this point.

I think two things are incorrect here. First, many countries have achieved substantial cuts. Most of Europe, Japan, etc. are on target to meet or very nearly meet Kyoto. They seem to have done it with little real impact on their economies, which is rather soundly ignored. Second, how exactly do you measure emission reductions when it is relative to a business as usual case that never actually happened, i.e. how much has Canada reduced emissions relative to if the Gov't had never spent a $ on Kyoto?

As for the rest, I think the way to address emissions is to price pollution for everyone. If GHG costs $30/tonne and every energy product consumed was charged this fee, the economy would adapt. Further, if these taxes collected were used to directly and proportionately offset personal and corporate income tax rather than put into a gov't run fund that pees money away by choosing which projects to support, the economy would quickly adapt. If $30/tonne does not meet the target, up the price to $45. The price that achieves the reduction goal is the most efficient way to actually get emissions down, rather than voluntary feel good moves and support for technologies that may or may not pan out.