Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Thomas malloy wrote ( about junkscience.com):- Steve is offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that it's deleterious consequences outweigh the benefits. Since it's impossible to prove either one, the prize is of no consequence. What just about everybody seems to miss on both sides of the argument, both global warming deniers and climate change scientists alike, is that the REAL idea that needs ramming down people's throats is that those who think things will be OK, that global warming is not a threat, have to absolutely PROVE it - it is not necessary for the Green lobby and the climate change scientists to have to prove that climate change definitely will occur due to man's fossil fuel emissions, they only have to establish that it probably will (which has been done). Everybody seems take it as read that the whole argument is down to the scientists and their varying opposed opinions. There is something beyond, and even greater, than what passes as scientific opinion these days - this something is raw logic and where we have a situation with an uncertain outcome, where we do not have enough knowledge or experience to be able to definitely predict what will happen, and the analysis of the situation suggests that there is a possibility of disrupting a stable climate with enormous long term consequences for humans and all the other life on Earth, then that chance MUST NOT be taken. It is up to the deniers to PROVE that there is no such danger (which is impossible) - the junkscience.com challenge is a ghastly perversion of wise thinking. Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Nick Palmer wrote: [If] . . . the analysis of the situation suggests that there is a possibility of disrupting a stable climate with enormous long term consequences for humans and all the other life on Earth, then that chance MUST NOT be taken. It is up to the deniers to PROVE that there is no such danger (which is impossible) . . . While I agree completely in the case of global warming, this standard cannot be applied to all conceivable risks. In some cases (other than global warming) the risk is exceedingly small, or the methods of preventing the risk are too expensive, or the methods themselves are likely to cause more damage than they might prevent. Some examples: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. Recombinant DNA research, mammal cloning. Same as cold fusion. Uranium fission reactors. Obviously dangerous, as there have been several serious accidents in the U.S., but far less dangerous than coal. We should continue to build and use these things, but we should replace them as soon as something like cold fusion becomes available. Food irradiation, human cloning. Same as cold fusion, but I think the dangers are large enough that we should either go slow or abandon these technologies. A large meteor strike on earth. Everyone knows there is a significant risk of this, and there is widespread agreement that steps should be taken to identify potentially dangerous meteors, but I think it would be premature to try to deploy technology to change meteor trajectories. We need much cheaper and better rocket technology first. Star wars missile defense. The cost so far (over $100 billion, as I recall) far exceeds the potential reduction in risk. The risk is hardly reduced at all. If we could ensure that no missiles can reach the U.S., Europe or Japan for $100 billion, it might be worth it, but because countermeasure as so simple, and the technology so unreliable, the technology reduces risk a tiny fraction at best and may actually increase it. Most of the anti-terrorist steps taken so far by Homeland Security: a waste of money. The risks are small and many of the steps taken so far are so outrageously expensive they are not cost-effective. The same amount of money would save far more lives per dollar invested in things like automobile accident prevention, smoke detectors, obesity reduction, or prenatal care. There are millions of ways to reduce risk by spending money. We cannot begin to implement them all. We have to pick and choose, and live with a certain level of risk. There are also many ways to reduce risk without spending money, or in some cases by saving money. We should always implement such changes. For example, the New York Times Magazine reported that highway risks can be significant reduced with a better, more readable font on the overhead signs. These signs wear out and they must gradually be replaced over several decades anyway, and it costs nothing to print the new signs with a better font, so we might as well do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
On 15/8/2007 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? Harry
RE: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
If humans are causing the current apparent warming trend, maybe we've done it before? Fossils, cores, and other evidence (legends, ancient records well known to some Vortexians) shows that the earth has warmed and cooled substantially and perhaps rather suddenly quite a few times over the last few million years, with two significant warmings and/or ice melt events (the two aren't necessarily the same thing I suppose) occurring fairly recently which caused very large sea level increases. Recently discoveries have been made that tend to point to the existence of surprisingly large and organized human populations in these ancient times. Since large populations tend to gather at near sea level, maybe we have yet to discover the extent of these civilizations since most of the land they probably once occupied now lies underwater. They could collectively have been relatively modern in size. No doubt populations that size would burn a lot of firewood. Seen the air over the Asia lately? My question is: are there wood fire soot concentrations in ice cores at the level just before these major sea level rises occurred? The reverse (soot before cooling or sea level decreases) doesn't fit the disappearance of these populations coincident with the large sea level increases, and thus not a human cause of older GW episodes. But can you imagine the refugee problems, famines, epidemics, and wars lasting for generations that would have occurred in any case? Ouch. The Mu... - Rick
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Harry Veeder wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? A large explosion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
While it's certainly not proof, for many years after nuke came on the scene at the end of the 19th century, even top scientists were certain that we would never be able to extract usable energy from it. How times have changed. I guess the danger is in the pattern. - Rick -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize On 15/8/2007 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
On 15/8/2007 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? A large explosion. - Jed How about the appearance of uranium and plutonium. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Harry Veeder wrote: How about the appearance of uranium and plutonium. Yup. That too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
On 15/8/2007 6:50 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: Thomas malloy wrote ( about junkscience.com):- Steve is offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that it's deleterious consequences outweigh the benefits. Since it's impossible to prove either one, the prize is of no consequence. What just about everybody seems to miss on both sides of the argument, both global warming deniers and climate change scientists alike, is that the REAL idea that needs ramming down people's throats is that those who think things will be OK, that global warming is not a threat, have to absolutely PROVE it - it is not necessary for the Green lobby and the climate change scientists to have to prove that climate change definitely will occur due to man's fossil fuel emissions, they only have to establish that it probably will (which has been done). Everybody seems take it as read that the whole argument is down to the scientists and their varying opposed opinions. There is something beyond, and even greater, than what passes as scientific opinion these days - this something is raw logic and where we have a situation with an uncertain outcome, where we do not have enough knowledge or experience to be able to definitely predict what will happen, and the analysis of the situation suggests that there is a possibility of disrupting a stable climate with enormous long term consequences for humans and all the other life on Earth, then that chance MUST NOT be taken. It is up to the deniers to PROVE that there is no such danger (which is impossible) - the junkscience.com challenge is a ghastly perversion of wise thinking. Nick Palmer Another way to view the evidence is from a legal perspective. Contrast the charge of global warming in a criminal court with the charge in a civil court. In a criminal court you would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mankind is guilty. In a civil court it is sufficient to establish guilt by the weight of the evidence. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
thomas malloy wrote: Steve is offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove that anthropogenic global warming is real . . . People who set this kind of challenge can never persuaded. I learned a long time ago with cold fusion that if you show them 10 replications, they will demand 100, and if you show them 100, they will demand 1,000. . . . and that it's deleterious consequences outweigh the benefits. A preposterous demand. Any change to the ecosphere always causes catastrophic damage and mass extinctions to the species then prevalent. Other species may later occupy the empty niches, but in the first stage there is always a die off. For example, global warming has caused spring weather to occur about 2 weeks earlier in much of the U.S., and this is causing terrible losses of migratory birds. The birds are evolved to come north at a certain time of year when insects are hatching and their populations are peaking. Now, by the time the birds come, the insects have already hatched and died off (and caused terrific damage to human farming), so the birds starve to death. Even if it could be shown that global warming might benefit people, we have no right to kill off hundreds of thousands of other species, and that is what we will do if global warming runs rampant. - Jed
