Comments below.


--- Michael Meuser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Uhhh no.  However, you cannot make ethical decisions in a vaccuum.
> You
> > should know what the facts are before you make a decision.  One thing
> I
> > think that can be said with certainty is that the level of certainty
> that
> > is often found in comments and news reports about Global Warming is
> way
> > way over stated.
>
> 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)

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.



> delay won't help when there are alternatives readily available.  If we

Exactly what are these alternatives?


> quit the understating of the problem, who knows, with luck we'll
> make a change for the better.  GW is but a symptom of a world

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....).


> 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.

Steve

=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/