> Comments below.
>
>
> --- Michael Meuser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > What? If anything, they've been understated over the last decade
> > or so. The response, of course, has been even more understated.
> > If folks in power had embraced the likelihood early on and
> > supported alternatives we might not be in the fix we are in. More
>
> This is precisely the kind of stuff I am talking about. You have assumed
> certainty. Here is another example; on PBS (I think) they had a special
> on global warming and one of the people they interviewed was Stephen
> Schneider. Schneider talked at length about the mean temperature for this
> last century and how it was higher than the mean temperature for the past
> mellennium. Sounds bad at first, but is it? I am not convinced. Why?
> What is the definition of a mean, well it is the expected value of a
> random variable. What is one way of estimating this moment? Well there
> is a simple average. Add up all the observations and divide by the number
> of observations. Generally speaking some observations are going to be
> greater than the mean and some lower than the mean using this type of
> estimator. So just by itself looking at the mean isn't all that helpful.
> What is the variance, the second moment? Is that small or large? If it
> is large then perhaps the past temps aren't unusual or maybe they are, but
> by omitting this information YOU CANNOT TELL. (caps for emphasis)
>
Whether I think there's certainty or not is not important. The point
is that either way, the changes we take to address the possibility
will lead us down a more sustainable and equitable path.
> Combine this with the following quote from Scheider
>
> "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary
> scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any
> doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between
> being effective, and being honest."
>
> I have to wonder if the omission was in fact not a calculated manuever on
> Schneider's part. Clearly he is a "scientist" who feels that it is okay
> to be less than honest.
>
I don't necessarily agree with him, but again that's not the point.
>
> > delay won't help when there are alternatives readily available. If we
>
> Exactly what are these alternatives?
>
There are so many things that have been proposed and advocated
over the years it's hard to know where to start. To begin with
consider:
* energy use reduction and the reduction of all associated
negatives (toxics, particlulates, dams and displacement, dams and
fish...),
* alternative energy (hydrogen, fuel cells, wind, PV),
* smaller more efficient homes
* less travel (especially air and private auto
* comfortable, efficient, low cost mass transit,
* local production for local use (reduce energy related to
transportation of goods, resources, workers),
* taking a hard look at corporate charters and reworking them so
that corporations serve society instead of the other way around.
Much of this would already be realized if there hadn't been
organized resistance against such progress. That's just a start but
you get the idea. I hope that others can fill in the blanks.
>
> You have assumed that there is a problem. The failures of the hypothesis
> to account for a variety of observations indicates the hypothesis is
> lacking. However, some actions that would help reduce the problem of
> warming, assuming the climate is warming, carry their own benefits, so
> taking these actions would advisable.
>
>
> > turned upside down. Even if we don't fix global warming, we will
> > have implemented alternatives (less consumption, less inequality,
> > move away from fossil fuels, banning of some toxics, etc.) that will
> > make the life left a better life. Better than nothing. So it seems
>
> Really? Here is a suggestion, and I am not just being flippant, go to
> your breaker box and turn off all the electricity to your house and unhook
> all the phones and give your car keys to your neighbor and then see how
> much better life is. Try it for a week. (Hey I am being nice, I didn't
> tell him to turn off his hot water heater....).
>
That IS flippant. It does not have to be all or nothing.
>
> > the ethical choice is to embrace GW. Even if it isn't true and the
> > Earth is not warming, the alternatives are needed for a host of other
> > reasons.
>
> Soooo, then you shouldn't have a problem with the above suggestion. Try
> it for a week and then get back to us, I'd really love to hear what you
> think of the experience.
>
Again, think about alternatives. The world of ideas and ingenuity is
much larger than the one you see.
Mike
|