CO2 and global warming

Martin Frey wrote in message . ..
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

American politics gets more generally deadly the more you know about
it. This is very scary stuff.

Yes, to the scientifically and economically ignorant.

I don't understand how concern about the lack of response from the US
to the possible connection between human activity and major
degradation of the environment can only scare the ignorant.

Please enlighten me. If you are just mouthing off ad hominem - that
may be a better indicator of ignorance than fear of global catastrophe
if precautionary preventative action is not taken by the most
profligate producer of CO2 in the world.

You have a number of assumptions in your statement that need to be
clarified.

* What is the magnitude of global warming? How is it catastrophic?
Provide evidence.

* Is a warmer climate a problem? Provide your reasoning.

* How much of global warming is anthropomorphic? Provide evidence to
support your assertion.

* Assuming the above answers haven't provided a compelling arguement
that global warming is a non-significant event, (and that's my
conclusion) present your case that the benefits of economic
developement based upon cheap fossil fuels don't greatly outweight the
costs to adjust to different weather patterns.

* Assuming after all of the above, we decide to mitigate anthromorphic
global warming defend your assertion that we should do this by
limiting CO2 production vs. other methods of mitigation.

* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

--
Oh, and lastly, define your statement "major degradation of the
environment" with numbers and supporting criteria. Note that changing
the tempurature isn't "degrading".

Cheers

--Fred

(freddo411) wrote:

Yes, to the scientifically and economically ignorant.

I don't understand how concern about the lack of response from the US
to the possible connection between human activity and major
degradation of the environment can only scare the ignorant.

Please enlighten me. If you are just mouthing off ad hominem - that
may be a better indicator of ignorance than fear of global catastrophe
if precautionary preventative action is not taken by the most
profligate producer of CO2 in the world.

You have a number of assumptions in your statement that need to be
clarified.

* What is the magnitude of global warming? How is it catastrophic?
Provide evidence.

* Is a warmer climate a problem? Provide your reasoning.

* How much of global warming is anthropomorphic? Provide evidence to
support your assertion.

Google.

* Assuming the above answers haven't provided a compelling arguement
that global warming is a non-significant event, (and that's my
conclusion) present your case that the benefits of economic
developement based upon cheap fossil fuels don't greatly outweight the
costs to adjust to different weather patterns.

The cost may be the sustainability of human life on the planet. I'd be
willing to turn off the odd light for that even if it means a dint in
Enron's profits

* Assuming after all of the above, we decide to mitigate anthromorphic
global warming defend your assertion that we should do this by
limiting CO2 production vs. other methods of mitigation.

I use limiting CO2 production as an exemplar of the various methods.
If you think we're going to get anywhere on this problem without CO2
limitation and can make a persuasive case for it, I will do what I can
to assist your Nobel nomination.

* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

Get real.
---------------

You remind me of the lady in (I think Alabama) who appeared even on UK
news saying she wasn't going to move for Ivan - the God she believed
in would look after her.

Now hurricane path prediction is not an exact science and maybe she
got away with it and maybe not. Trouble is that all the like minded
the god fearing stay at homes who died can't come back and say "I'll
never trust that ****er again".

Global warming will not be proved 100% conclusively until it is too
late. But enough scientists have spoken out to at least raise doubt
about whether the current rush to more and more SUVs is entirely
sensible.

But as Bush said very early in his presidency, I'm not signing
anything that might cost a single American job.

This is very scary stuff.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:25:08 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

Get real.

Very few people in a science newsgroup are going to find this a
persuasive or compelling argument.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:25:08 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

Get real.

Very few people in a science newsgroup are going to find this a
persuasive or compelling argument.

I would hope to take it for granted that the self- and incessantly
repeated- leader of the free world would want to take a lead in what
could be the most important programme in all our futures. You choose
however to await a lead from poverty stricken communists and hindus.

Get real.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:47:29 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

* Defend your assertion that China and India should be
non-participants in the mitigation.

Get real.

Very few people in a science newsgroup are going to find this a
persuasive or compelling argument.

I would hope to take it for granted that the self- and incessantly
repeated- leader of the free world would want to take a lead in what
could be the most important programme in all our futures.

As for waiting for the "Hindus" et al, what would be the point in
pauperizing ourselves when any reductions we engaged in would be
swamped by their increases?

Anyway, you assume, with little basis (at least none presented here)
that Kyoto is indeed that. Furthermore, you assume that anyone that
disagrees that it is, does so out of "greed," and apparently can't
conceive that there could be some morally legitimate basis for
disagreement.

Again, you won't find that a very persuasive line of argument.

If you have some specific critique of Lomborg, who is neither
"greedy," or venal, the group would love to see it.

September 19, 2004

freddo411 wrote:

You have a number of assumptions in your statement that need to be
clarified.

Actually, no, the answers are quite clear.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The answer is yes, including the question :

Is Freddo411 an idiot?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

As for waiting for the "Hindus" et al, what would be the point in
pauperizing ourselves when any reductions we engaged in would be
swamped by their increases?

Will the US be pauperised (more than mere assertion, please)?

As the greatest consumer of resources per capita and the nation that
keeps asserting that it is a leader, this reluctance to take a lead is
surprising and disappointing.

Anyway, you assume, with little basis (at least none presented here)
that Kyoto is indeed that. Furthermore, you assume that anyone that
disagrees that it is, does so out of "greed," and apparently can't
conceive that there could be some morally legitimate basis for
disagreement.

Of course Kyoto isn't perfect - it was designed by a huge committee.
But it is the best hope - and all you offer in return is is a counsel
of despair. Will we steal the future of our grandchildren just in case
India or China try to emulate our current profligacy? I begin to wish
I believed in a hell for you people to rot in.

Again, you won't find that a very persuasive line of argument.

If you have some specific critique of Lomborg, who is neither
"greedy," or venal, the group would love to see it.

Only that he is in a minority and, if I was a betting man I would not
bet on him. I could be wrong - but again I would not bet on it.

The trouble is that, if he is wrong it's curtains. If he's right and
we don't believe him, it's a smaller car in the garage. I'd settle for
that - though there aren't many smaller than my little buggy. If we
all started switching to cars that do 50+ miles on a gallon (what's
that in the US style gallon - 40 miles?) then I reckon we might scrape
by with time for new technology to make an impact and economies that
still function. But changing to chunkier and chunkier SUVs is flying
in the face of fortune. Very scary stuff.

My condolences on your Ryder cup spanking, by the way. Better luck
next time.

September 19, 2004

Rand Simberg wrote:

If you have some specific critique of Lomborg, who is neither
"greedy," or venal, the group would love to see it.

Actually, there are just too many to list in a single post :

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...=Bjorn_Lomborg

http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Follow the links.

Rand Simborg - Unconcerned Rocket Man Wanna-Be.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:25:27 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

As for waiting for the "Hindus" et al, what would be the point in
pauperizing ourselves when any reductions we engaged in would be
swamped by their increases?

Will the US be pauperised (more than mere assertion, please)?

While pauperized may have been a hyperbolic term, the fact remains
that it would have significant effects on the GDP (and gross world
product as well) that are likely to be much larger than than the
amounts required to deal with the potential effects of global warming.

As the greatest consumer of resources per capita and the nation that
keeps asserting that it is a leader, this reluctance to take a lead is
surprising and disappointing.

"Consumer of resources per capita" is a meaningless statistic, outside
the context of "producer of resources per capita."

Anyway, you assume, with little basis (at least none presented here)
that Kyoto is indeed that. Furthermore, you assume that anyone that
disagrees that it is, does so out of "greed," and apparently can't
conceive that there could be some morally legitimate basis for
disagreement.

Of course Kyoto isn't perfect - it was designed by a huge committee.
But it is the best hope

On what basis do you say that? Frankly, it's nonsense.

- and all you offer in return is is a counsel
of despair. Will we steal the future of our grandchildren just in case
India or China try to emulate our current profligacy? I begin to wish
I believed in a hell for you people to rot in.

I'm starting to think I should take back my admission of hyperbole for
using "pauperize" in the face of this irrational hysteria.

If you have some specific critique of Lomborg, who is neither
"greedy," or venal, the group would love to see it.

Only that he is in a minority and, if I was a betting man I would not
bet on him. I could be wrong - but again I would not bet on it.

On what basis would you not "bet on him," other than that many of the
politically correct disagree with him? Your bets should be based on
reason and science, not the ignorant opinion of the mob.

The trouble is that, if he is wrong it's curtains. If he's right and
we don't believe him, it's a smaller car in the garage.\

That's an absurdly false choice. I'm betting that you haven't even
read his book.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:26:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I would hope to take it for granted that the self- and incessantly
repeated- leader of the free world would want to take a lead in what
could be the most important programme in all our futures.


As for waiting for the "Hindus" et al, what would be the point in
pauperizing ourselves

Why would signing the Kyoto accord pauperize anyone?

Because it will significantly reduce the GDP of much of the world, but
particularly, the US, the greatest producer of wealth on the planet,
over the next century. When the world grows poorer, the poorest grow
even more so.