you can't "point out" something that nonsensical, and of course it makes sense to take measures now.
If a train is coming at you you get out of the way, you don't research the odds that it may stop before it reaches you. This is standard planning technique. You factor in the likelihood of an outcome and exactly how much you do or don't want it. Let's say you are right that we do not know the likelihood (which seems unlikely, but ok). There is still the fact that the extinction of the human race would be a Very Bad Thing (TM) and should be avoided if possible. Or, to put it another way, if one factor is infinitely large, you cannot discount the other factor even if it is infinitely small. On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > As I pointed out in another thread, we do not know what is causing the > climate change, so it does not make sense to spend tons of money on a > 'solution' that may have no affect. We need more research/knowledge to make > an informed decison about what is the proper solution (if the problem is > being caused or exacerbated by us) moving forward. > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ok so > > > > case one -- they are not the driving force and we do nothing -- outcome > > neutral > > case two -- they are and we do some remediation --outcome acceptable > > case three -- they are and we do nothing -- outcome unacceptable > > case four -- they are not and we do something -- some financial losses > > > > I am in favor of #2 and think the magnitude of the potential consequences > > of #3 means that its risk far outweighs the risk of #4, which would be a > > problem but not catastrophic. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think you missed my point. > > > > > > It was stated: > > > > > > 'If we take measures to do something about GW, but then discover > > > it wasn't real, how much will we regret that?' > > > > > > I was merely pointing out that I have heard others use the same logic > > when > > > discussing God. 'If you spend your whole life devoted to God and in the > > > end, > > > there is not one, would you regret it?' > > > > > > IMHO, me going 'green' will have about as much impact on the Earth as > my > > > religious beliefs.....not much at all. I am not convinced that humans > are > > > the driving force in the climate changes. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Otherwise known as Rene Descartes' "Le Pari," or "The Wager." > > > > > > > > I don't see that "bleeding hearts" would care either way. I > personally > > > > think that you cannot talk yourself into believing in God and that > > anyone > > > > who does so out of self-interest is probably committing a greater sin > > > than > > > > unbelief. > > > > > > > > However. > > > > > > > > Your religious beliefs and mine are a personal matter that probably > > > affect > > > > nobody else. When George Bush applies magical thinking to > environmental > > > > matters and calls it religion, millions of people pay the price. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Funny, I have heard people use the same logic about believing in > God. > > > > > 'There is a chance there is a God, so why not believe just to make > > sure > > > > you > > > > > are covered'. I cannot imagine how the bleeding hearts would react > > to > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > RoMunn wrote: > > > > > > > Global warming is not a myth, it is a worldwide con perpetrated > > by > > > > > > shysters > > > > > > > like ALGORE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think most people would agree that the Earth is warmer and that > > the > > > > > > climate is different, e.g., arctic ice melt, et al. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the simple questions for humans are: Is this change a threat > or > > > not? > > > > > > > > > > > > Which brings us to these questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > (1.) If we learn that GW is real and we're all about to die, will > > we > > > > > > comfortable knowing we may have done something but didn't? > > > > > > > > > > > > and/or > > > > > > > > > > > > (2.) If we take measures to do something about GW, but then > > discover > > > > > > it wasn't real, how much will we regret that? > > > > > > > > > > > > - ANSWER - > > > > > > Doing a comparative analysis I will pick #2 and live with my > regret > > > > > > rather than #1 where I will die with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:283201 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
