The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about
global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we
try to do something, it will result in economic damage. Actually, if
we invest in alternate energy, this will create jobs and keep more
money in the economy. In the video, the choice of spending a lot of
money to develop the atom bomb was used as an example of having to
make a costly decision based on a lack knowledge about what the
Germans were doing. Actually, by developing the atom bomb we also
created nuclear power for energy production, which added greatly to
the economy. As a result the initial investment was trivial compared
to the eventual advantage. The same would be true of our response to
global warming. In short, we actually have nothing to lose. Why can't
this idea be accepted?
Ed
Ed
On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Nick Palmer wrote:
There will be a new book on global warming coming out, provisionally
titled "What's the Worst that could Happen?". It's written by
wonderingmind42 AKA Greg Craven, a school science teacher from
Oregon. He did a 10 minute Youtube video that went viral called "How
it all ends" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg. He got a a
book contract on the strength of this and there has been an online
collaborative effort (in which I have had a small part) to hack out
a book version in 3.5 months. He just succeeded a couple of days
ago. His angle was to explore a risk analysis method for "Joe
Schmoe" to use for deciding what to do about potential climate
change when the science isn't certain. It's pretty entertaining...
Nick Palmer
