 | |
CHILL OUT!!
Nascar NASCAR and other professional stock car racing (rec.autos.sport.nascar)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
 
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
Re: CHILL OUT!! -
10-08-2003
, 01:41 PM
|
bullshit. unadulterated bullshit, my friend. how expensive is it to replace a unique species that becomes extinct? |
said, species were going extinct before mankind showed up, and will
continue to do so long after we're gone.
Quote:
|
how expensive is it to replace the genetic diversity that may well be useful in increasing agricultural output or curing disease? what pricetag would you put on these things? |
of economics: it's the study of how, and why, people make choices when
faced with limited resources.
Quote:
|
and do we just ignore the fact that while diseases like melanoma, COPD, and asthma are expensive to treat, they're also damn inconvenient to have? what about the virtually unpredictable potential for increased infectious disease rates with climate change? what's the pricetag on that? give me a number. i suspect you can't, because no one knows. |
Quote:
|
of course, i know you've already ignored the people who can't afford this "bit" more expensive that the future will be to live in. but naturally it's our right as polluters to decide that everyone will have to pay this "bit" of expense. |
issues.
Quote:
|
There is a very real possibility that much, if not most, of the variability in climate observed over the last 100 years in not of mankind's making. lots of things are possible. consider probabilities. current expert opinion does not suggest the possibility you suggest is all that likely. |
issue. Very few are willing to make the claim that it is highly probable
(>50%) that human sources are responsible for the climate change
observed over the past 100 years. Do I think it's probable? Yes. But
what I want to think is not really relevant. I don't *know*.
Quote:
|
generally over much longer periods of time, and those changes were catastrophic to the species alive at the time. most mass extinctions weren't caused by meteors, you know. moreover, climate change is hardly limited to temperature change alone. for example, we have no evidence that ozone holes like the ones we observe existed before industrial activities. |
widespread phase-out of CFC's, and the problem appears to be reversing
itself.
Quote:
|
yes. humans have come up with very creative ways of fouling our nest. |
than it has ever been.
Quote:
|
while i agree that there's little to no chance of us causing our own extinction in this way, we are certainly setting ourselves up for some massive changes in how we and the other creatures on the earth will have to live. |
economics. Lots have people have modeled the competing scenarios: what
will life be like 20 or 50 or 100 years from with varying amounts of CO2
abatement. Almost all have shown that learning to live with the effects
of climate change is cheaper than trying to reverse it. Reducing CO2
output to the levels required to stabilize background concentrations at
current levels is more expensive than dealing with the changes.
You are citing the precaiutionary principle: because we don't know, with
certainty, all the end results, we should definitely take what we
currently perceive to be the safets path. If that axiom had been rigidly
followed for the past 200 years, we'd all be a lot poorer. We'd all have
to work more, consume fewer calories, have less leisure time, and die
younger.
As to the personal philosophy of trying to minimize one's affects
(negative or otherwise) on one's surroundings, I think I'm probably a
lot closer to you than you give me credit for. But that's not the issue.
The issue is the cost of dealing with climate change versus the cost of
trying to reverse it. And in crass humanistic terms, the former is
always cheaper, given what we know.
Don't assume I'm advocating one position, I'm just reflecting a broad
base of opinion that the dangers are vastly overblown.
Later,
bp
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
Mike Marlow raved thus: ::: we won't have to worry about any of this once the meteor headed our ::: way smashes into the Earth and really screws up everyones day. i ::: think it is due to arrive in 2014 and they say it'll miss us by ::: about 4 million miles....but i think they're hiding something. ::: ::: ::: mike......... :: :: Better get Bruce Willis on the line... Or Harry Hogg... Abo -- How come you don't see mouse flavoured cat food? |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
adrook (AT) yahoo (DOT) com (Kit) wrote in news:e756f30f.0310071721.e5b8667 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com: "SimRacer" <no-unc.tarheel.fan (AT) mindspring (DOT) com-spam> wrote in message news:<aNBgb.34368$5r1.11172 (AT) twister (DOT) southeast.rr.com>... Yeah, nobody ever really stops to think, what killed off the dinosaurs? An ice age. Stands to reason that from the coldest part of that ice age would begin a period of warming, leading to a large thaw, leading of course to another ice age. Eras, like weather, are cyclical. We are in the warming stage of the current era. Yes, glaciers are melting. Millions of years ago, they weren't even there, they were lakes or seas or simple snow-melt-runoff. They'll melt completely eventually and some grand force of nature will bring another ice age upon us once again and guess what, they'll refreeze. And we're NOT killing our planet. The planet will be fine. We all may die off, but the Earth will be here until our sun burns out or explodes, and I'm sure the Earth could care less whether or not people are on it at the time. I agree with you, but Id also like to add that the Bible supports humans and dinosaurs living together. The ancient world could be a lot different than the crap taught at public schools. Yeah, we should be like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where the old testament account of creation is taught in school. Then our kids would toss logic and reason to the wind and fly planes into buildings or strap bombs on themselves, all in the name of "the truth". |
extreem feminine modesty is instilled from childhood. Then our kids would
toss logic and reason to the wind and fly planes into buildings or strap
bombs on themselves, all in the name of "the truth". Down with feminine
modesty!.
--
-Mike-
mmarlow (AT) REMOVEsprintmail (DOT) com
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
From: jason (AT) heimbaugh (DOT) com (Jason R. Heimbaugh) The Bible also supports humans and unicorns living together. Why are there no unicorns in science textbooks? |
without barbq'in somethin.
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl (AT) aecom (DOT) yu.edu> wrote in message news:hYGdncEGS4mPoxmiRVn-sA (AT) giganews (DOT) com... "Barry Posner" <bup100 (AT) psu (DOT) edu> wrote in message news:3F82FD7D.B27976C1 (AT) psu (DOT) edu... Pence234 wrote: The point is, my dears, that we are killing off the Earth habitat required for humans to exist. No we're not. At the very worst, we're making life in the future a bit more expensive to live. At the very worst. bullshit. unadulterated bullshit, my friend. how expensive is it to replace a unique species that becomes extinct? how expensive is it to replace the genetic diversity that may well be useful in increasing agricultural output or curing disease? what pricetag would you put on these things? and do we just ignore the fact that while diseases like melanoma, COPD, and asthma are expensive to treat, they're also damn inconvenient to have? what about the virtually unpredictable potential for increased infectious disease rates with climate change? what's the pricetag on that? give me a number. i suspect you can't, because no one knows. No proof at all that those diseases, while terrible, have anything to do with "greenhouse gas". |
climate change.
Quote:
|
Lot of leftist propaganda but no proof. |
compare. you'll find that my sources (science, nature, the geophysical
society, etc.) have more credibility than yours. deal?
#36
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| Mark Stahl wrote: bullshit. unadulterated bullshit, my friend. how expensive is it to replace a unique species that becomes extinct? It's impossible, so attempting to pace a value on it would be moot. |
economic estimate.
Quote:
|
That said, species were going extinct before mankind showed up, and will continue to do so long after we're gone. |
has that to do with anything whatsoever? let's discuss what we can control.
Quote:
|
how expensive is it to replace the genetic diversity that may well be useful in increasing agricultural output or curing disease? what pricetag would you put on these things? The amount that people are willing to pay for them. That's the essence of economics: it's the study of how, and why, people make choices when faced with limited resources. |
Quote:
|
and do we just ignore the fact that while diseases like melanoma, COPD, and asthma are expensive to treat, they're also damn inconvenient to have? what about the virtually unpredictable potential for increased infectious disease rates with climate change? what's the pricetag on that? give me a number. i suspect you can't, because no one knows. You're right. Nobody knows. |
making life in the future a bit
more expensive to live. At the very worst." completely unreliable. it could
be a great deal worse than that. it could also lead us to miss out on
opportunities that we would otherwise have, economic and otherwise.
Quote:
|
of course, i know you've already ignored the people who can't afford this "bit" more expensive that the future will be to live in. but naturally it's our right as polluters to decide that everyone will have to pay this "bit" of expense. I'm talking about society in aggregate. I'm not addressing equity issues. |
what do you think of the fact that climate change and other pollution
affects all of us, including people who reap no benefit from creating the
change in the first place?
Quote:
|
There is a very real possibility that much, if not most, of the variability in climate observed over the last 100 years in not of mankind's making. lots of things are possible. consider probabilities. current expert opinion does not suggest the possibility you suggest is all that likely. The government experts remain deliberately fuzzy when questioned on this issue. |
governments, generally not as fuzzy. of course, it's not a simple issue by
any means.
Quote:
|
Very few are willing to make the claim that it is highly probable (>50%) that human sources are responsible for the climate change observed over the past 100 years. |
societies which study the issue have position papers in which they
articulate exactly that sentiment. and of course there's the IPCC.
Quote:
|
Do I think it's probable? Yes. But what I want to think is not really relevant. I don't *know*. |
the worst that can happen is that the future may be a little more expensive.
that's a pretty flippant statement given the potential magnitude of the
problem, wouldn't you say?
Quote:
|
generally over much longer periods of time, and those changes were catastrophic to the species alive at the time. most mass extinctions weren't caused by meteors, you know. moreover, climate change is hardly limited to temperature change alone. for example, we have no evidence that ozone holes like the ones we observe existed before industrial activities. True. But the ozone depletion issue is being addressed, primarily by the widespread phase-out of CFC's, and the problem appears to be reversing itself. |
changes in our industrial activity-- *government mandated* changes, no
less-- has been shown to be reversing that change? be still my heart :-)
maybe it isn't time to eliminate all the government regulations after all...
Quote:
|
yes. humans have come up with very creative ways of fouling our nest. That's not what I mean. Life on earth is better for humans right now than it has ever been. |
Quote:
|
while i agree that there's little to no chance of us causing our own extinction in this way, we are certainly setting ourselves up for some massive changes in how we and the other creatures on the earth will have to live. Maybe. I think we're talking past each other. Philosophy versus economics. |
biggest part of why i have a problem with what you wrote above. it is simply
not the case by any means that "At the very worst, we're making life in the
future a bit more expensive to live. At the very worst." that's simply true,
because there are aspects of climate change not factored into economic
calculations. at the (somewhat likely) worst people have to deal with
diseases they didn't have to before. they won't see the same wildlife in
their backyards. they will deal with the headaches of floods, tornadoes, and
other "extreme" weather events more often. they won't enjoy lunch in the
park as often. and on and on. at the moderate "worst we lose important
medicinal or agricultural advances to species loss (and that has a very real
economic effect.) and at the "very" (if highly) worst, we eventually lose
valuable ports to flooding as sea levels rise. so how is what you wrote
true?
Quote:
|
Lots have people have modeled the competing scenarios: what will life be like 20 or 50 or 100 years from with varying amounts of CO2 abatement. Almost all have shown that learning to live with the effects of climate change is cheaper than trying to reverse it. Reducing CO2 output to the levels required to stabilize background concentrations at current levels is more expensive than dealing with the changes. |
the first place, though. the scenarios are not even equivalent after you
factor in the costs, because of non-economic factors.
Quote:
|
You are citing the precaiutionary principle: because we don't know, with certainty, all the end results, we should definitely take what we currently perceive to be the safets path. |
pointing out that cost is not the only factor, and that the costs will be
unequally borne by people who did not benefit from the changes in the first
place.
Quote:
|
If that axiom had been rigidly followed for the past 200 years, we'd all be a lot poorer. We'd all have to work more, consume fewer calories, have less leisure time, and die younger. |
the average american :-) )
Quote:
|
As to the personal philosophy of trying to minimize one's affects (negative or otherwise) on one's surroundings, I think I'm probably a lot closer to you than you give me credit for. |
when it's more than that. i also have a problem with the idea that your
economic analysis is... incomplete.
Quote:
|
But that's not the issue. The issue is the cost of dealing with climate change versus the cost of trying to reverse it. And in crass humanistic terms, the former is always cheaper, given what we know. |
and what of the costs if it turns out we *have* to reverse it? will that not
be rather expensive and perhaps impossible?
Quote:
|
Don't assume I'm advocating one position, I'm just reflecting a broad base of opinion that the dangers are vastly overblown. |
who would benefit economically from the status quo? (or the scientifically
literate people of RASN/america at large?)
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
"-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-3M*@altara.invalid> wrote in message news:gEXgb.70384$Of2.2884583 (AT) twister (DOT) tampabay.rr.com... "Mark Stahl" <stahl (AT) aecom (DOT) yu.edu> wrote in message news:hYGdncEGS4mPoxmiRVn-sA (AT) giganews (DOT) com... "Barry Posner" <bup100 (AT) psu (DOT) edu> wrote in message news:3F82FD7D.B27976C1 (AT) psu (DOT) edu... Pence234 wrote: The point is, my dears, that we are killing off the Earth habitat required for humans to exist. No we're not. At the very worst, we're making life in the future a bit more expensive to live. At the very worst. bullshit. unadulterated bullshit, my friend. how expensive is it to replace a unique species that becomes extinct? how expensive is it to replace the genetic diversity that may well be useful in increasing agricultural output or curing disease? what pricetag would you put on these things? and do we just ignore the fact that while diseases like melanoma, COPD, and asthma are expensive to treat, they're also damn inconvenient to have? what about the virtually unpredictable potential for increased infectious disease rates with climate change? what's the pricetag on that? give me a number. i suspect you can't, because no one knows. No proof at all that those diseases, while terrible, have anything to do with "greenhouse gas". sure there is. also, greenhouse gases are only one part of anthropogenic climate change. |
Quote:
|
Lot of leftist propaganda but no proof. show me the "leftist propaganda", i'll post the proof, and then we'll compare. you'll find that my sources (science, nature, the geophysical society, etc.) have more credibility than yours. deal? |
leaving people like China alone.
Its more leftist one world crap from the UN.
--
-v-
Solamente ocho!
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.