Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
KD4nk.430$ZV1.135@trnddc07:">news:KD4nk.430$ZV1.135@trnddc07:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:489B5CF0.3DC97598@xxxxxxxxxxx:


My own feeling is that the AGW side is 'over egging the cake' as we
say here and trying to eliminate valid debate. And if a slighly
'over the top' film (as Gore's was) can redresss that balance, so
much the better.

Graham


sigh<

**EVERYONE** is "overegging". *That* is my point.

<snip>

Personally, I don't give a ruddy *** about who is "right" re: AGW.
What I care about is that it is *POSSIBLE* that AGW is underway, and
*IF* it is indeed underway, uh, like, well, maybe we'd be kind of
stupid to do nothing to plan for that possibility.

Let's put it this way. Every day, people lose their homes to fire or
flood. That is not only an emotional loss - it's a major economic
loss that will have a deep and tremendous impact upon the rest of
that family's life. Of course it does not haooen to *every* home,
but it is a *possibility*, it's a risk. So you know what people do
(and I mean *do* as opposed to just blither about)?

__People **buy insurance**.__

Do you "know" that your house will burn down, or get flooded out? Of
course not - but you look at the risks, and you buy *insurance*
because of the *POSSIBILITY*. Like, duuuuh. I don't know how much
more the concept can be dumbed-down.

What I also can't figure out is why something so inanely *simple* is
so incomprehensible. I see all these people blithering on and on
about how ever so very smart they are but how stupid the other person
supposedly is and blahblahblah yaddayaddayadda, and I'm sorry but it
is all frigging *assinine*, because what matters is not who is
"right" (and frankly, I hope like all bloody hell that AGW is NOT
right!!), what metters is:
**how much risk the anti-AGW people want to make *us all*
take on?**

You pay to insure your home, so yeah, like duuuh, we'll have to pay
to reduce *the risk* of AGW. And really, what is so freaking wrong
with trying to reduce the emissions, and esp. the stupid
wastefulness, that create not only CO2, but all sorts of other
harmful pollutants, and piss away resources? Why is that srt of
insurance a bad thing? Why is *insurance against a possibility*
wrong?


What if the insurance were $35,000 a year,

Bogus number, red herring.

and mandatory for everyone?

Last I looked, you couldn't get a mortgage without having some sort of
insurance lined up. TH reason is that, even if one person wants to take
the risk, thatperson has no right ot impost upon hisneighbor the risk of
sparks from hs fire, igniting their houses.

Actions have consequences, and what I've seen and heard is too many
people ignoring things, becasue to acknowledge those things woudl remind
them that we all eventually need to bear the consequences of our actions.

Suppose it were just $4,000 a year? The increased price of gasoline
is costing Americans what, a few hundred to a thousand extra a year?
What impact has that had?

So, what's YOUR plan? Jsut keep going along as we are, never developing
any form of non-fossil-fuel power?

As for cars, again, this is not some sugdeen thing - it's been brewing
since at least teh 1970's. If someone made a choice to ignroe history
and buy soemthign that gets only a few miles per gallon, whereas 've been
buying fuel-efficinet cars (*and* properly maintaining them) for teh past
30 years, why should I feel sorry for soemone who got what they wanted?

But in any event, that's a red herring. THe point is that, as with
insurance, you can pay something now, or risk losing everything later on.



How could you set reasonable premiums without actuarial tables to
gauge the risk? Or the damages likely?

ISTM insurances would normally call global warming 'force majeure',
not covered for these very reasons. It's unknowable.

There are other problems in the world -- which are most important ?

Those are the questions.

Is this one a desperate emergency ? Very unlikely.

SO, let's do nothing at all. Woo-hoo.


Note too, please, that *I'm* not the one who is sitting around saying
what a genius I am and what idiots other people are - anyway, nobody
here is an idiot, otherwise they wouldn't be able to put together a
coherent paragraph at all. What I do have, which seems to be in
distressingly short supply, is *more simple common sense than God
gave a cabbage*. WHich means, I know about trying to avoid financial
risk - so I have home insurance, and save/invest towards retirement
(because of the risk that social security will tank), and so on.
Therefore, I also have enough simple common sense to realize that AGW
is a *risk*, like any other risk, and to realize that, like, uh, it
might be sorta-kinda smart to have some insurance, so to speak,
against it.


OK, so, what is the worst that can happen if you're right, but
everyone else takes steps to reduce waste, reduce pollution, and
develop "greener" technologies? What? We'll have cleaner air? The
incidence of childhood asthma would go down to previous percentage
rates? We'd have fewer asexual (hence non-reproducing) fish and
other wildlife, fewer three-legged frogs? More trees? Homes that
are more comfortable due to better thermal control? More business
opportunities might open up? Mor eindustries might remain "at home"
so to speak, because it might be cheaper than sending work everywhere
else, and we might then have enough of an economyu again to help
otehr countries develop their own economies? So if the world doesn't
implode, hooray, you were right, and nothing bad happend.

We're doing all of those things already; no one is against them.

"We"? No, not "we". Some people. And sorry, but yes, a lot fo epole do
go on as though they are against them, especially when the filthy,
disgusting word "conservation" is mentioned.

Yeah, yeah, I've ehard it hundreds of times before, "Conservation won't
solve all out problems", and it's an absurd, meaningless quibble -
*nothing*, not even oil, solves "all" problems/energy questions. THat
doesnt' mean one shoudl throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.


But you ask 'what's the worst that could happen' if we drop everything
and fight the wrong problem with all our attention, money and might?

I didn't say "drop everything", you're merely being insulting and
inflammatory :p



Quite a lot. The cost in lives and treasure around the world could
be very high.

We're addressing the possibility of AGW.

"We"? Some people. Many are doing rather the opposite.


Need we panic too?

Best regards,
James Arthur


"Panic"? Wat a silly thing to accuse me of. I'm not "panicing" any more
than I "paniced" while looking into insurors prior to us getting the
mortgage. Planning is not panic.

WHat I am is irritated by all of the quibbling from BOTH "sides", who
seem to care so much about bickering over who is "right", that they
refuse to see anything beyond their egos.


.

Quantcast