Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming.

From: Ed Earl Ross (edearl_at_satx.rr.com)
Date: 01/21/05

  • Next message: knews4u2chew_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Bush Ordered 911" 
    Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:44:57 GMT

    Robert Sturgeon wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:43:08 GMT, Ed Earl Ross
    > <edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:36:19 GMT, Ed Earl Ross
    >>><edearl@satx.rr.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>(snips)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>One cannot see an electron. However, lots of people believe they
    >>>>exist.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>So do I.
    >
    >
    >>Didn't mean to impugn your integrity, just trying to point-out that
    >>many people believe things they can neither see nor understand. I
    >>didn't want to use an example that might push someone's button and
    >>start an argument, this one seemed safe. In retrospect, I could
    >>have worded the comment better.
    >>
    >>Your analysis of "Global Warming" is interesting and informative. I
    >>don't have your confidence that Global Warming is not and will not
    >>occur from of CO2 and other emissions. If global warming is
    >>occurring, the results could be disastrous, and the fear of it
    >>compels me to act, but I am virtually helpless. Your arguments
    >>lessen my fear.
    >
    >
    > Well, the thing is, you can think of all kinds of disastrous
    > results from possible problems. If we don't all carry
    > around whistles and blow them at least once per hour, we may
    > be subject to an invasion of killer elephants! That's
    > certainly scary, isn't it? If the possible danger is scary
    > enough (and global warming certainly is), does that mean we
    > must do whatever the scare-mongers say? Or should we look
    > very carefully not just at how scary the danger is, but also
    > at the odds of it really happening?
    >
    >
    >>I feel that policy makers may be driven by the same fears as mine.
    >
    >
    > Fear, unleavened by a serious consideration of the odds, is
    > a poor way to make policy.
    >
    >
    >>If so, it will be difficult to quench the research, as politicians
    >>do not like to be blindsided by an unknown event. I also support
    >>the research because I don't want to be blindsided.
    >
    >
    > I'm all in favor of more research, so long as it isn't
    > driven by politics.
    >
    >
    >>CO2 reduction by both conservation and sequestration seem benign;
    >
    >
    > Except for the costs, which would be extreme.
    >
    >
    >>consequently, reasonable insurance against unwanted environmental
    >>effects.
    >
    >
    > I wouldn't pay $50,000 per year for fire insurance on a
    > $300,000 house. Would you?
    >
    >
    >>I am willing to help with the cost of insurance, if the
    >>cost is not outrageous.
    >
    >
    > It would be.

    IMHO, the cost is about as controversial as "Global Warming," itself.

    Conservation of energy is often less expensive than not conserving,
    for example using good insulation and solar thermal heating for new
    homes.

    Depending on process, CO2 sequestration can either cost or make
    money. How things go depends greatly how people use existing
    technology, as much as future developments.

    There are people trying to sell complex technology, when simple
    things will work. It's not a conspiracy, just capitalism, but the
    detrimental effects are the same.

    Humbly--Ed

    >>I wish that research can tell us that global warming is not
    >>occurring and will no occur because of CO2 and other emissions, but
    >>it does not appear likely. Also, it seems unlikely a consensus can
    >>be reached any time soon.
    >
    >
    > Indeed. There is no consensus, although the vast majority
    > of climatologists do support the theory. Remember - the
    > vast majority of Soviet scientists supported Lysinko. To do
    > otherwise was a real career killer. To publicly doubt
    > global warming is probably almost as risky for someone
    > trying to get funding in the West nowadays. "Almost"
    > because you're not likely to go to the Gulag for it. But it
    > is just about as Politically Incorrect. The whole business
    > has been politicized.
    >
    > --
    > Robert Sturgeon
    > Summum ius summa inuria.
    > http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

  • Next message: knews4u2chew_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Bush Ordered 911"
    Loading