Yuku free message boards

@aspong;

'Are you saying that a "noun" is impossible in your Apollo 13 analogy?

I simply refuse to keep going around this bush with you anymore.

"Seems you haven't heard about positive feedback. Theoretically, once you reach a certain level of CO2 production, it gets to a point where it perpetuates its own increasing production. IOW, man's production of GHG can add to the levels sufficiently enough to "trigger" its own perpetuation. -- if you believe the CO2 equation, of course. This is what members of the IPCC are telling us is possible. Some even believe it's already too late."

Sure I have. But there are negative feedbacks as well, and in the climate system, the two combine to form a self regulating system. For any pertubation, they force the system to reach a new state of equilibrium until the next pertubation of the system. Were it not for these balancing forces, the atmosphere would have run away eons ago. Self perpetuating generation of CO2 or "runaway greenhouse effect" claimes are essentially on par with the perpetual motion machine. They simply cannot happen.

That some persons contributing to IPCC reports believe it is too late is uncompelling. People believe all sorts of things. It does nothing to bolster the validity of their arguement. Remember, as a newly minted skeptic, you will be faced for the foreseeable future with an unending number of outrageous claims based on bogus or frivolous science, social arguements, verbal taunts and assaults on your character, etc. You are in a numerical minority. You should lose any susceptibility to what others believe, lest you fall back into being a believer.

It was my understanding that they do in fact have some idea of the levels required, but that they have to make it politically realizable. IOW better to start somewhere than wait until they have more exact figures.

You're forgetting the documentary. All of these alleged figures are based on scenarios from models that presume CO2 to be the cause, and thus prove CO2 is the cause (see your documentary). That's how frivolous the science really is, which is why after watching the documentary, you recanted. Remember?

"If you'll allow another analogy, without getting caught up in words, it's like you're heading towards a cliff and waiting until you can calculate the exact and error free breaking force required before you begin applying the brakes. Better to start braking first."

You're really much better at crafting analogies of a believer than a skeptic. The analogy presumes a zero cost to act. In other words, pushing a brake lever doesn't cost you anything. Sure, if there was no cost involved, it would be preferrable to simply stop using fossil fuels and switch to alternative green energy. The problem with that postulate is there isn't any available in quantities that could displace fossil fuels, and what does exist is considerably more expensive to produce. Industrial societies thus far have simply not been willing to bear the cost involved in reducing fossil fuel consumption or doing without any of the benefits and conveniences industrialization brings.

"Why? Even if that were true, would it be politically workable?"

Of course not. Which is why all but the staunchest anti-capitalists gravitate towards a position of reducing consumption.

"But it's a red herring, attempting to exaggerate the case to invalidate it."

Well, it's not a red herring, but it is an extreme. There are two ends of the debate that are equally unattainable. Stopping fossil fuel consumption, and switching to vast stores of available, cheap, green energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gases, and oh by the way, doesn't exist.

"because I mentioned Stern only to demonstrate the lie of your prophesy"

your statement that GW policy would "ruin our economies, revert to the bronze age and in the process kill millions if not billions in doing so, and achieve virtually nothing."

Still looking for a reason to cry foul I see. So I lied, you say? Neither of your characterizations of my statement are factually correct. Given you had access to the unaltered statement, and chose to only use a portion of it, if you're concerned with liars, start with yourself. Here is my statement in its entirety;

Quote:

---

At present, the "global warming" attributable to human emissions issue presents us with a golden opportunity to ruin our economies, revert to the bronze age and in the process kill millions if not billions in doing so, and achieve virtually nothing.

---

It's neither a prophecy or a statement of the consequences of any GW policy. However, it is my opinion. My opinion, or anyone else's, by definition, can't be a lie.

Now it's interesting that you put Stern;s claim up as a competing opinion. He perpetuates the myth (as pointed out in your documentary) that stopping global warming by reducing "GHG emissions" is relatively painless. He bases it on the claim that there will be a reduction by 75% the amount of GHG emissions produced per unit of economic output, but presents no absolutely no evidence that it is attainable, other than as an article of faith. And given a choice, to recognize that eliminating GHG emissions is not only difficult, but has other serious societal consequences (the view of skeptics), and buying into Stern's vision that elimination of GHG's is simple (the view of believers), only costs us 1% of GDP, you jumped at Stern's vision , just like a good believer. I don't care what you say about the documentary, it changed nothing with you. You're a believer in skeptic's clothing.

"Would you rather I complicate my posts?"

Complicate? You can't even handle cut and paste. Just make sure you use the scissors with the rounded ends.