Trying to keep emissions at a minimum is smart. Forcing it because it felt warmer, but now it doesn't, is not smart. Unless of course you want to make a killing from selling useless insurance to suckers.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a problem with your insurance analogy that I think is > important in this debate. You buy home owners insurance that covers > potential fire damage. That's good and wise. If you go blythly along > doing your own wiring without knowing much of anything about > electricity and then your house catches on fire from it, maybe you're > covered. Dudes come by, tear down the shell of your burnt house, start > rebuilding it, you check into a motel glad that you got those 10 year > batteries in the smoke alarms and that you weren't too drunk that > particular night to wake up when the alarm went off. As for the burnt > stuff, hey, its just stuff, right? Yeah, you probably shouldn't have > wired a new addition to your house by yourself and you really know > better, but man, permitting is a pain in the ass you know and those > union electricians are so expensive and keep telling you shit like, > "no, a 220 volt toaster is a bad idea above your new bath tub" even > though you really want to be able to eat pop tarts while taking a > bath. > > Unfortunately, we really don't have "insurance" when it comes to > climate change. There is a pretty good consensus amongst climate > scientists that continuing on the road we have been is equivalent to > doing our own wiring and sticking a 220 volt toaster next to a bath > tub. It could be that we will be fine and that the tolerance for our > industrial activities in the environment is far greater than we now > think. But what kind of insurance policy do we have? Can we just move > to another planet and hang by the pool while contractors come in and > rebuild? > > I'm all for a lot more climate study, there is an incredible amount to > learn. But the studying isn't an insurance policy, it doesn't help us > if we melt the polar ice caps and substantially decrease the salinity > of the worlds oceans. A conservative approach says "well, it looks > like there is a strong possibility that pumping CO2 into the > atomosphere makes it a less than happy place for humans. Perhaps it > would be wise to wrachet that back while we find out more about what > all we can do." That's an insurance policy. Strongly decreasing > emissions now stands the best chance of giving us room for error. Its > true that there is a lot we don't understand yet. And that's why we > need the room for error. So lets err on the side of caution. Listen to > the smart people, take prudent measures to make sure that we have time > and room to figure out what we don't know. > > Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283043 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
