Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG

Kris Krieger wrote:
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?

You're too emotional. I've only ever said exactly the opposite.


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.


The numbers MATTER. Insurance against the wrong problem is useless.


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.


You've made that up. No one else has said it. Why not move on?

Cheers,
James Arthur
.

Quantcast