<I'm putting this back on the forum, hope you don't mind> Dangerous video. <g> Couches some myths and glaring omissions very well, not to mention the hypocrisies: I especially liked the one where we had no choice but to go all out - - ***on the CHANCE the enemy was developing WMD!*** OMG, don't let your friends see you advocating that! (Disclaimer: ironic humor only - not advocating we shouldn't have done Manhattan, nor that we should have gone back to Iraq as we did, It's just too damn funny, that's all. These people don't know when to quit.) And how about the expanding the boxes for the cred of the sci orgs? On that basis, let's shut down this bogus "cold fusion" research too. Then there's the missing box about trying to alter those giant natural feedback loops we don't understand and can't model properly (line 2 in my piece.). In that box if we do act, we risk defeating a loop nature was engaged in which might have saved our bacon - if we hadn't pooched it. More missing boxes: we already know these changes occur naturally and with little warning. The choices are to spend effort on speculative climate alteration efforts, or spend effort on what we *can* do against what we *know* is inevitable. Cost of opportunity factors are largely ignored on their grid. It must be much more complete to be of value for best-outcome decision making. To be of value for demagoguery, it will have significant omissions and altered values. Omissions are easy - most people aren't skilled at looking for what's not there, and what is there is far too distracting. That presentation is cute and the presenter seems honest and well meaning, but it's seriously flawed. I love Youtube too, but there comes a day when a person has gotta put down the joint and take stock of all these things carefully. The truth is that AGW is essentially a hoax used as part of the greatest push for global domination socialists have ever made. Remember the "economic harm" box in the vid? Look at the suffering and death socialism has caused in the last 100 years. The two worst case boxes for acting or not on GW are actually quite close, not highly divergent as presented. I *know* socialism is going to be very bad, it always has been, and we have good history on that. I *don't* know GW is going to be that bad (Mu not withstanding), if it occurs at all - it is an unknown risk. Known trumps unknown. This partially repairs their grid. I choose, among other things, that we get off oil AFAP and prepare for climate change at the exclusion of direct attempts at GW mitigation. That's the correct position, and it's the one I'm taking where public policy is concerned. The people of the ancient climate/sea level events may not have been prepared, and although most records of their suffering is lost, it must have been very bad - some or all the stuff in the worst case box: refugees, disease, starvation and war. Those ledges near my home are real, and I suspect that some of the ancient conflicts we experience today are residuum from those times. Let's not let our legacy be that we wasted our efforts and treasure on futile and dangerous attempts to alter the climate when we knew not a whit what we were doing, but that we prepared our political, economic, energy, transportation, agricultural, residential, and manufacturing systems for the impact of significant climate and sea level changes that have always occurred and will occur again. The two paths diverge, but there are large areas of overlap. I suggest we work together and start there. Cliche, but so relevant: "<...> grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Rick _____
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]:AGW http://youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg <http://youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related> &feature=related
