Why are you even bother replying Chris, I thought I was too dreary (must
be all that focus on such nasty things as data and statistical analysis
and stuff) for you, and also your mind was already made up. Oh well.
Lets see, below we have an extended analogy. Your flue virus. Sorry, but
if 2% from man is bad then 98% from nature must be horrible and we might
as well as all roll over and die. The reason your analogy fails is
because you can seperate the flu virus from the person, but you cannot
isolate anthropogenic CO2 from natural CO2.
Your half a percent is baloney also. First, the amount of carbon in the
atmosphere is not constant. Second it can and has flutuated by more the
.5%.
Nice scare tactic as well. "What if its too late?" We don't even know if
it is even happening. By your line of reasoning you shouldn't fly, get in
a car, go to the hospital (you could get a deadly disease and die, or die
due to the anesthesia, etc.), and so on.
As for my attitude be reckless, so is yours. Yours it the "lets leap
before we look" and oh well if its a 5000 foot cliff we just leapt off of.
You have pushed the Precautionary Principle so far past its intended use
its laughable, and I think unethical. Your version of it can be used to
justify stopping any type of activity.
AS for rationality you have yet to exhibit any.
Steve
--- Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> >
> >That is fine and I agree, but as an engineer would you say, "sure let
> >traffic onto the bridge it is probably safe"? What needs to be
> >articulated are the magnitudes of the probabilities and what sort of
> >policies are being discussed. Also, the magnitude of the influence.
> >Chris Lees various C&P jobs slant the discussion so that the only
> culprit
> >is economic activity. However, man's contribution of GHG's to the
> >atmosphere is, generally speaking, pretty small. This is why I think
> >various press releases focus on tonnage vs. say proporitons or
> >percentages. It is pretty hard to get worked up when you find out that
> in
> >percentage terms we are talking someting on the order of say 2%.
> >
> >Also, the actual phrase from the IPCC was "The body of statistical
> >evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical
> >understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible
> human
> >influence on global climate." Seems to me that is only part of the
> >information we need to know before we start shutting down electric
> grids
> >or something.
>
> Look Steve, if you're going to argue in favour of a rational and
> scientific
> position, at least do it consistently and rigorously. It's just
> ludicrous and
> totally unscientific to say that "man's contribution is pretty small"
> and you
> can't get excited over just two percent. That's neither rational nor
> scientific.
> Flu virus is pretty small, yet it'll knock the shit out of you ! What if
> the
> trigger for a massive flip in the system is, say, half a percent ?
> You're
> going to tell me that doesn't matter ? what if it's 15 percent ? Who
> cares ?
> It's not the size of the number. It's the result. And, if your
> complacency
> proves to be misplaced, and then it turns out that it is too late to do
> anything ? What then ? You just shrug and walk away ? I think your
> attitude is reckless and irresponsible.
> I certainly never said "that the only culprit is economic activity". I
> see
> it all in biological/ecological terms. If economic activity doesn't
> have some
> negative effect upon natural systems then I disregard economic activity.
> The trouble is that most economic activity is pursued regardless of
> sense,
> purely for mindless profit, by people who don't understand and don't
> want
> to understand the consequences of their actions, e.g.Nuclear energy
> systems,
> with no idea what to do with the waste that's going to be lethal for
> hundreds
> of thousands of years. You going to tell me that we 'rational and
> scientific'
> humans decided to invest because it was a purely rational and
> intelligent
> choice ? As far as I can see, greed and profit and lust for power run
> most
> soceities, and rationality comes a long way down the list of what
> influences
> human conduct and decisions.
>
> C.L.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|