Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (100233)	2/13/2005 4:35:14 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 793647

..>>>The other one is the element of the policy process where you're supposed to decide whether to prevent or adapt. I've argued here for the adaptation approach on global warming. Most people who are attentive to the issue fall into two groups--those who are frantic to prevent it and those who deny it.>>> You are well on your way to winning that argument as no effective program has yet been conceived in the way of completely stopping the effect if it even exists. It is right to worry, but we mostly worry about the wrong things. Like the Russian nukes,like terrorists attacking with bombs, not our own aircraft. Like porous Canadian borders, or The threat( and worry) of global warming can be useful in convincing cities to clean up their air, to cut auto pollution, to find alternate fuels, to bring efficiencies to all energy uses and to fund studies of the effect of deforestation. Convert worry into action and lessen the worry. Sig

To: Lane3 who wrote (100233)	2/13/2005 4:39:04 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793647

Most people who are attentive to the issue fall into two groups--those who are frantic to prevent it and those who deny it I think that's too simplistic. Most "deniers" from my experience do not deny a general slight warming trend, they deny human causality. And hence deny that human prevention of the phenomenon is at issue. Derek

To: Lane3 who wrote (100233)	2/13/2005 4:55:04 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793647

I thought the most interesting comment from Chrichton was his comparison of the "double blind" procedures required for FDA approval of drugs to the "science" used in Global warming. The example he used was the "hockey puck" that is now pretty well invalidated. His comment was, "if double blind was used on global warming, it wouldn't exist."

To: Lane3 who wrote (100233)	2/13/2005 5:53:04 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793647

karen, how would you define or frame "90% safety"..... Billions of containers come into our ports each year. Since we only examine about 10% of them, perhaps it will be that 4 or 5 of the containers will come in, not be checked, and have materials to cause enough damage and distruction to make many places in our country uninhabitable for decades, if not longer. To say nothing of economic damage worldwide. Is it better to try to do the best we can to think of all possibilities? Or to ignore them? If we spend money for 90% but ignore 10%, and that 10% lets something in that causes great harm, did we wisely spend the money in the first place? Did the mouse family care that the cat was contained 90% of the time, if the cat was out 10% of the time, and ate the entire mouse family in that short time? One was the the public's inability to be rational about risk. He used the term "cognitive illusion" regarding the demand of people and their willingness to overpay for 100 percent safety as opposed to, say 90 percent safety. I've mentioned this often in connection with terrorism risk