wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:
I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position
allows you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

Unfortunately the science leans the other way.

Anyone reading this got house insurance? Life insurance?

The economic cost of anti-GW measures is the cost of the insurance
policy against global environmental dislocation (or disaster).
And the majority of climate scientists are saying that that that
dislocation (or disaster) is pretty much a dead cert. On that
basis, the cost of the anti-GW "insurance policy" is well worth it,
despite the expense. If there was a 70% chance of your house
being burnt down, a policy that cost 20% of its value would be
worth it.

Of ocurse there's a catch. It's pretty much human nature to tend
to do absolutely ****-all about inconvenient problems until some
major disaster happens -- since the disaster gives the average
person (e.g. politicians) an anecdote to "prove" the science
with. If we're lucky, that major disaster (which most likely
will have to kill many millions to count) will happen to somebody
else, and it won't happen too late for effective steps to be
taken. This disaster will never count as proof for rich
individuals or businesses who can make a short or medium term
profit regardless.

It's an insurance policy. The climate scientists might not have
got it right, but the chance of that is much smaller than the
chance they're right; so the reasonable position would be that
the anti-GW measures and their inconveniences are worthwhile.
Expecting a planets worth of national governments to agree on
something reasonable is, on the other hand, not reasonable.

Thank you Paul. The stakes are high and I agree it is worth trying to do
something while we can. By its nature, GW is unprovable. I believe many GW
deniers to be intelligent, if self-deluding. Sadly if they are allowed to
prevail, well, at the *very* least, many coastal lines will become unusable
(the GWR line springs to mind?).

However I suspect when it gets to that stage, that will be the least of our
worries.

John

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust
denier on another NG. Never again.

I don't believe you did!

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust
denier on another NG. Never again.

I don't believe you did!

Excellent!

It made me realise that there is absolutely no way anyone can *prove*
anything to anyone via Usenet.

Particularly if they have constructed a strong belief system around not
believing in it.

There is a book waiting to be written on the abnormal psychology of Usenet.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason
for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard 'n' sandals
brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You are
of
course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust denier on another NG. Never
again.



Careful - edging dangerously close to Godwin's law...

Jonn

John Mullen wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard
'n' sandals brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You
are of course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

As indeed are you. The difference is, I know that I can do **** all about
GW, should it ever turn out to be man-made, in comparison to the
politico-industrial interests causing most of the pollution. Once they
make a significant difference (principally in the US, whose government will
do bugger all about it to avoid upsetting it's industrial backers) then I'll
think about not lighting a barbie and giving up motorsport. Until then, I'm
not going to let it spoil my day

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard
'n' sandals brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You
are of course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

As indeed are you. The difference is, I know that I can do **** all about
GW, should it ever turn out to be man-made, in comparison to the
politico-industrial interests causing most of the pollution. Once they
make a significant difference (principally in the US, whose government
will
do bugger all about it to avoid upsetting it's industrial backers) then
I'll
think about not lighting a barbie and giving up motorsport. Until then,
I'm
not going to let it spoil my day

Absolutely true.

The only things I can think of you as an individual could do would be to use
public transport rather than a car where possible, and in general to limit
energy usage (sensible on cost grounds anyway). You could also lobby your
member of parliament to support sustainable energy rather than fossil fuel.
Beware though; the whole topic of environmental economics is enourmously
complex and controversial. An awful lot depends on the value you place on
things like having air you can breathe. Most agree they are important, but
their value is difficult to put a number onto.

Your barbie is probably CO2-neutral so you are ok there! Burning charcoal
merely returns the carbon the tree took from the atmosphere when it was
alive. Unless you have one of these ridiculous propane barbecues...

Personally I drive a car (diesel Peugot 205, ~50 mpg) and also own a motor
bike which I enjoy using to burn fossil fuels when I can. I also regularly
use trains (slightly better, though I know all the recent debate about this)
and planes (worse). So I am not trying to establish any kind of green moral
superiority here. I just couldn't let some of the GW denial bull**** go
unchallenged. Whether we like it or not, by blithely releasing all this
carbon (which was built up over millions of years) into the atmosphere at
once, we run a very strong risk of changing the planet's climate in ways we
probably won't like.

John

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why
does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants,
like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find
whenever they are trying to get increases in funding?

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.

Well here you have it - even the White House now accepts global
warming is man made:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996334

Mister Harper's opinions are now those of a very small minority (what
might be called a lunatic fringe?).

Alex Terrell wrote:

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum,
why does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research
grants, like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the
astronomers find whenever they are trying to get increases in funding?

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.

Well here you have it - even the White House now accepts global
warming is man made:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996334

Mister Harper's opinions are now those of a very small minority (what
might be called a lunatic fringe?).


Appears to have been slashdotted (or something).