--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> wrote:
> > The bottom line, Judy, is if you truly believe global warming is 
> > crisis that it is, you will have to be consistent in your 
> > life and stop driving cars and taking planes and doing any 
> > that adds to global warming.
> You continue to qualify the climate change problem in two ways. 
> constant use, appears that you are using these as strawmen -- and 
> playing games. I hope not. 
> First "crisis". Is a problem only a problem until it reaches a 
> statge? For example, is Social Security just fine until the checks 
> no longer sent? Was Hitler no problem in the 30's until he invaded
> Poland? It seems the hallmark of good leadership is to forsee 
> as they develop and mitigate them before they reach crisis stage. 

I totally agree.

That's why it's important to weigh the costs of going down the Kyoto 
road or whatever it is that the Gore-ists want us to do.

I contend that the costs to tryng to prevent global warming far, far 
outweigh the costs of doing nothing.

> argument about "crises" appears to reflect a mind thinking all is
> "just gal'darn shucks good" until the oceans rise 12 feet.
> And problems, prior to crisis, are always probabalistic as to the
> timing, duration and even potential for a crises. But everyone in 
> world acts under uncertainty. There are good methods to deal with
> decisions under uncertainty. (You like one such approach months 
> having to do with NO and the levees.) That approach is applicable
> here. If there is a 33% probability of a crises (say as indicated 
by a
> given crisis benchmark of oceans risiing 12 feet in 50 years, then
> what is the "expected value" of the crisis' impact? 
> Its the cost 50 years out -- lets say a $100 trillion over the
> following 50 years to be very conservative, x 33% == 33.3 trillion,
> discounted back 50 years to the present. using long term growth 
> as the discount rate, thats 4600 billion. Thus, if we spend less 
> $4600 billion today to avert a possible (33% probability) crises 
in 50
> years, we / society is ahead of the game, its a profitable 
> Lets say we don't just want to break even on social investments, 
> score big. So we cut the investment threshold by 2, insuring a 
> profitable return (of avoided costs) on the investment. so about 
> billion. Spread over 10 years, 230 billion / year or so would be a
> very profitable play. Over this 10 year investment horizon, the 
> 50 years out, and the pobability of occurance can be adjusted
> appropriately. If the costs and/or probability are  seen to be 
> the investments can be diminished or curtailed. And vice versa. 

Then let's look at the opportunity costs to going the Kyoto route or 
whatever it is that the pro-global warming (or whatever you want to 
call it) want us to do.

It's analogous to those that advocate organic gardening at the cost 
of 100 million who will die without the benefit of fertilizer and 
all that.

> Your other strawman is the constant use of the term "global 
> when the problem is global climate change. Some areas will become
> warmer, others cooler. Some strawmen advocates point to cooling in
> some areas and say "ah ha, see -- no warming" as if that negates 
> larger global climate change problem.

The world and the universe are in constant change and constant 
flux.  I suspect that 99.9% of the changes everyone is up in arms 
about are natural changes and not due to the burning of fossil fuels.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to