"Ian St. John" wrote in message ...
SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
m...
SwimJim wrote:
Mike1 wrote in

[deletions]

[deletions]

I never said that I thought something better could be negotiated
today.

Your words were. "I think something more useful and palatable could have
been achieved." Ergo you DID think that 'something better could have been
negotiated'. And you are shown wrong by the fact that something better was
NOT negotiatied.

Ian, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your position. Note that
I said "today". I'm of the mind that believes a poor treaty is not
better than none at all. I think they should have stayed at the
table, or perhaps waited until there was more international political
will for a better treaty, with more teeth, with better approaches to
the problem.

I said that I didn't support the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes. You have said that. You claim that something better could have been
negotiated despite the evidence of reality. Refusal to recognise reality is
known as 'delusion'.

See my comments above. Perhaps it would have been better for me to
have said a better treaty _should_ have been negotiated, rather than a
better treaty (protocol) _could_ have been negotiated. Maybe the
Kyoto Protocol is the best that could have been achieved at this point
in time. If so, then I think they could have saved a lot of money and
time and breath and ink not bothering with it.

My position
is that the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong way to accomplish anything
meaningful or significant regarding climate change caused by
anthropogenic GHG emissions

Quite probably. Myself, I would go for a universal carbon tax, but the point
is that you said something better could have been *negotitated* not that
something better could be found. The fact is that nothing better can or
could have been negotiated. Most of the people doing the negotiations were
more concerned with loopholes and exclusions rather than effectiveness.
However, the deficiencies of politics is not the issue. Kyoto. Love it or
leave it, you ain't going to replace it. And it is slightly better than
nothing with a hope that a more intelligent treaty can be negotiated in
2012.

Our main point of disagreement is whether or not it is better than
nothing. I don't think it's better than nothing. I think if the IPCC
2008 report is strong enough, then we can start talking about a better
treaty. (Long time to wait, though.)


-- and you know that I think this is a
significant concern. The reason I don't support Kyoto is that I
don't think it really addresses the problem it ostensibly addresses!

And yet it does, no matter if it is perfect or not. The MAIN point of Kyoto
is to show that you are SERIOUS about climate change and willing to make
policies based on it. This will change the 'why bother' mentality to a 'let

Europe hasn't shown that's serious yet. Wake me up when something
happens.

us get in on the action' one. THAT is the most important reason for Kyoto.

Ignoring Kyoto for a moment, a bright spot in this is that businesses
are realizing it's probably in their best interest to be ahead of the
curve on climate change issues. I don't think that Kyoto is the main
reason for this, but if you want to argue that it's part of the reason
for this, I wouldn't take issue with that.

[deletions]

I think all of Europe is chuckling about the Kyoto shell game -- they
can miss their minimal targets and they probably expect to, while at
the same time piously bashing the U.S. for being realistic about how
the public would choke on it, and not ratifying it.

No. They are legitimately trying to do their part, although with a certain
lack of energy due to the fact that others are slacking about.

I'll keep watching the news.

[deletions]

Most of the time newer technology is adopted only when shown to be
significantly better (by some measure) than older technology. The
main "better" is usually cost-effectiveness.

Most of the time new technology is adopted because it can drop the price,
not because it is better. Beta was demonstrably 'better' than VHS and still

Isn't that what I said? ;-) Sure a BMW coupe is better than my
minivan, but I'd need three coupes -- and two more drivers -- to get
my kids to preschool!

is despite the advances. VHS still won. It was cheaper to produce and thus
the 'entry cost' was lower. The 'race to the bottom' is driven by sales
volume and market share. Cost is ALL of the equation, not just the 'main'
part of it. The quality can go to **** ( or a long way towards that end) as
long as the price is cheaper.

Disagreements are healthy. And occasionally enlightening. Thanks.

Jim Acker

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)


The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------

SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
snip
Or an exercise is real leadership. Nobody was clamoring to reach the
moon in 196x. The leadership (JFK) MADE it an issue and got the
backing of the public. Similarly leadership is supposed to be the
game in politics. Long time since that happened.

The leadership aspect of the race to the moon was the fact that we had
to prove the intellectual and technological superiority of the West
over the Communist East. The backing of the public was available
because of fear of the Russian bear and table-banging Nikita
Khruschchev. The results were quite good for science and technology,
but those were not the main reasons we went, nor were they the reasons
JFK made the call to go.

The point is not that there were reasons to do it but that the leadership
made the difference. In todays political landscape, they would first read
polls to see how many people are concerned with beating the Bear and with
going to the moon and then see if they can use this to justify the expense.
Of course, it would fail that test. They would then decide to invade Iraq,
which has been calling them pussies, put together the jusification based on
selecting for faulty 'intelligence' data for unreliable sources, and ignore
the public clamor against it. This is the failure of 'leadership' that
prevails today. Highly reminiscent of a spoiled child doing whatever it
wants.

But thanks. You are reminding me that most people today cannot even
*recognise* or understand true leadership. It does not mean forcing people
to do what they do not want, but focussing the discussion, reasoning and
getting others to WANT to do what the leader has determined to be the right
course so that all are together working towards that end. i.e. developing a
'unity of purpose', not forcing people to support a wrong action by
'loyalty' and 'patriotism' Those are the tools of Fascists, not Democracies
or even Republics.

SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
m...
SwimJim wrote:
Mike1 wrote in

[deletions]

[deletions]

I never said that I thought something better could be negotiated
today.

Your words were. "I think something more useful and palatable could
have been achieved." Ergo you DID think that 'something better could
have been negotiated'. And you are shown wrong by the fact that
something better was NOT negotiatied.

Ian, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your position. Note that
I said "today".

And I will point out that I mentioned the low status of the U.S. in
international negotiations where they have a current record of ripping up
treaties as soon as everyone ELSE does what is necessary or ignoring their
responsibilities without even justification. I doubt if you could get an
international treaty to regulate dog food today, much less something that
would take real work like Kyoto.

I'm of the mind that believes a poor treaty is not
better than none at all.

A reasoned position but hardly supportable by my lights. I have found that
the first stage to getting public support is showing that you are SERIOUS
and thus making them start to think about it. A poor treaty would set the
stage for something better in the future and a steady clamor for a better
idea. A non-treaty just means that you consider it an issue of little
importance and sets the stage for it to be ignored totally.

I think they should have stayed at the
table, or perhaps waited until there was more international political
will for a better treaty, with more teeth, with better approaches to
the problem.

But staying at the table would have done NOTHING. They already HAD what they
came for. A treaty with so many loopholes and free passes that it was almost
meaningless except for it's use to define the problem as worthy of effort
and form a basis for measuring the progress.


I said that I didn't support the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes. You have said that. You claim that something better could have
been negotiated despite the evidence of reality. Refusal to
recognise reality is known as 'delusion'.

See my comments above. Perhaps it would have been better for me to
have said a better treaty _should_ have been negotiated,

Maybe but that is the scientist talking. The art of politics is in
compromise, not absolute answers. You have to 'evolve' the answers, and it
is more important to get the issue ON THE AGENDA rather than try for
perfection. An 'elegant solution' sitting forever on your desk is not much
use.

rather than a
better treaty (protocol) _could_ have been negotiated. Maybe the
Kyoto Protocol is the best that could have been achieved at this point
in time. If so, then I think they could have saved a lot of money and
time and breath and ink not bothering with it.

So ignoring the issue is better? By the way, sneering is not a particularly
reasoned response. Personally I think it could have been better. I even
outlined how I think it could be highly effective at using the market forces
to make real cost effective solutions. To some degree the problem was that
it defined goals, not methods so everyone was free to find the worst
possible implementation to criticise it on. But regardless, it is more
important to START.


My position
is that the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong way to accomplish anything
meaningful or significant regarding climate change caused by
anthropogenic GHG emissions

Quite probably. Myself, I would go for a universal carbon tax, but
the point is that you said something better could have been
*negotitated* not that something better could be found. The fact is
that nothing better can or could have been negotiated. Most of the
people doing the negotiations were more concerned with loopholes and
exclusions rather than effectiveness. However, the deficiencies of
politics is not the issue. Kyoto. Love it or leave it, you ain't
going to replace it. And it is slightly better than nothing with a
hope that a more intelligent treaty can be negotiated in 2012.

Our main point of disagreement is whether or not it is better than
nothing. I don't think it's better than nothing. I think if the IPCC
2008 report is strong enough, then we can start talking about a better
treaty. (Long time to wait, though.)

O.K. So you feel that it is better to wait for a 'wakeup call' crisis and
then you will have too little too late in a vacuum of solutions? Sure. But
that is independent of the fact that you could have SOMETHING before that.
The wakeup call will come and they may *renegotiate* rather than negotiate,
but doing something will start the ball rolling and make for a better
'viewpoint' on just how much needs to be done in the later effort.


-- and you know that I think this is a
significant concern. The reason I don't support Kyoto is that I
don't think it really addresses the problem it ostensibly addresses!

And yet it does, no matter if it is perfect or not. The MAIN point
of Kyoto is to show that you are SERIOUS about climate change and
willing to make policies based on it. This will change the 'why
bother' mentality to a 'let

Europe hasn't shown that's serious yet. Wake me up when something
happens.

I *could* say something nasty at this point..


us get in on the action' one. THAT is the most important reason for
Kyoto.

Ignoring Kyoto for a moment, a bright spot in this is that businesses
are realizing it's probably in their best interest to be ahead of the
curve on climate change issues. I don't think that Kyoto is the main
reason for this, but if you want to argue that it's part of the reason
for this, I wouldn't take issue with that.

IPCC, NSA, etc and the state, municipal levels are not controlled by the
executive so they have not been 'stopped' in progressing. However, without
the whole team together under real leadership, the efforts are fragmentary
and conflicting. The end effect is much noise and no output. Kyoto does
nothing but make a rallying point for those who take responsibilty and shows
that *the world* is also involved, so it is not a 'solo act'. The
'legitimacy' of an international agreement is really necessary to stiffle
the petty infighting and dismissals by those who do not want to recognise
the issue as important.


[deletions]

I think all of Europe is chuckling about the Kyoto shell game --
they can miss their minimal targets and they probably expect to,
while at the same time piously bashing the U.S. for being realistic
about how the public would choke on it, and not ratifying it.

No. They are legitimately trying to do their part, although with a
certain lack of energy due to the fact that others are slacking
about.

I'll keep watching the news.

[deletions]

Most of the time newer technology is adopted only when shown to be
significantly better (by some measure) than older technology. The
main "better" is usually cost-effectiveness.

Most of the time new technology is adopted because it can drop the
price, not because it is better. Beta was demonstrably 'better' than
VHS and still

Isn't that what I said? ;-) Sure a BMW coupe is better than my
minivan, but I'd need three coupes -- and two more drivers -- to get
my kids to preschool!

Comparing a sports car to an SUV for passenger volume is rather facetious.
The issue was a cheap SUV vs a much better, safer and more fuel efficient
SUV at a slightly higher price. Guess which one has the bigger sales volume?

The point is that the cheaper price is almost the only 'factor' that is
considered in expensive due to the fact that people prefer a lower 'price of
entry'. This become more important as the price of the article goes up.
Quality on cars and homes is almost not a factor. Quality in food,
cleansers, etc is more of an issue. You do NOT want to scrub for hours or to
gain weight. The lack of quality in 'expensive toys' is not much of an issue
since they get used so rarely. Mostly it is the 'keeping up with the Jones'
that drives such things.

despite the advances. VHS still won. It was cheaper to produce
and thus the 'entry cost' was lower. The 'race to the bottom' is
driven by sales volume and market share. Cost is ALL of the
equation, not just the 'main' part of it. The quality can go to
**** ( or a long way towards that end) as long as the price is
cheaper.

Disagreements are healthy. And occasionally enlightening. Thanks.

Thanks. I think we have illustrated the two opposing opinions. I do not
expect to change your mind, but the readers now have a choice to make as to
which argument they consider to have 'won' the debate.

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
om...
August 20, 2004

Norman Lynagh wrote in message :

It has actually been a relatively quiet hurricane season so far this
year.

And you are actually full of ****. By the middle of August, we have
had two major Atlantic storms, one of them killing 20 people and
creating 10 billion dollars in damages, and there were two tropical
unnamed lows, one of them killing thousands in Haiti and the Dominican
Republic. All of this before the Cape Verde season has really even
started. That is not a 'relatively quiet' hurricane season by any
measure that I am familiar with. It's not even September yet.


The damage caused is a function of where they happen to land 9( at random),
and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic damage!
Jeez.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...

And you are actually full of ****. By the middle of August, we have
had two major Atlantic storms, one of them killing 20 people and
creating 10 billion dollars in damages, and there were two tropical
unnamed lows, one of them killing thousands in Haiti and the Dominican
Republic. All of this before the Cape Verde season has really even
started. That is not a 'relatively quiet' hurricane season by any
measure that I am familiar with. It's not even September yet.


The damage caused is a function of where they happen to land 9( at random),
and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic damage!
Jeez.

In fact, with early warming systems in place and better building codes
modern damage is far less than it used to be.

Compare a force 4 hurricane here in Florida with few actual storm
related deaths (more happened post storm by people driving over downed
elewctrical wires than died by storm fury), to China.

On the very same day China had a typhoon of equivilent power and wind
speeds but 1,600 people died.

So you are vastly UNDERESTIMATING the modern damage, not inflating it.

The IMPORTANT POINT is there are people here now, whether more or less
is not the issue -- the issue is to learn from reality and avoid
future catastrophies if possible. Knowledge of weather not only allows
people to save more lives by warnings, but to save more property by
changing the weather to better than it would otherwise be if we made
it worse. One way or the other, human now have effects on weather.
That will never go away. We need to make intelligent decisions about
the weather we do make. We just threw away $14,000,000,000.00 worth of
property in one day in Florida. Does that make good economic sense to
you?

Would spending half that much money to not lose that much enrich us by
50% over where we would be otherwise?

September 11, 2004

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message :

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message :

August 20, 2004

Norman Lynagh wrote in message :

It has actually been a relatively quiet hurricane season so far this
year.

And you are actually full of ****. By the middle of August, we have
had two major Atlantic storms, one of them killing 20 people and
creating 10 billion dollars in damages, and there were two tropical
unnamed lows, one of them killing thousands in Haiti and the Dominican
Republic. All of this before the Cape Verde season has really even
started. That is not a 'relatively quiet' hurricane season by any
measure that I am familiar with. It's not even September yet.


The damage caused is a function of where they happen to land 9( at random),
and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic damage!

Those are valid numbers, there are many other numbers, none of which
indicate a relatively mild hurricane season in the Atlantic Basin, not
as of August 27, 2004, and certainly not as of September 11, 2004.

Another proud merkan idjit, full of merkan idjit ****.

Jeez.

Ever been in a real hurricane, Idjit?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
WB9KDP/C6A

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
om...
September 11, 2004

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message :

The damage caused is a function of where they happen to land 9( at
random),
and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic
damage!

Global warming debate aside, about the only way to refute that paragraph is
call him a name because it's exactly right on. I've lived on the barrier
island in Brevard County all my life (45 years) and guess what - there are a
"****-load" more people living here. Comparing storms across decades by
comparing damage *estimates* is absurd.

September 12, 2004

Tim K. wrote:

and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic


damage!

Global warming debate aside,

Global warming via hydrocarbon combustion is not subject to debate, it
is well within the 'cone of probability'.

about the only way to refute that paragraph is
call him a name because it's exactly right on. I've lived on the barrier
island in Brevard County all my life (45 years) and guess what - there are a
"****-load" more people living here. Comparing storms across decades by
comparing damage *estimates* is absurd.

So, you claim that quantification via estimation, i.e. science by
numbers, is absurd.

Yet Another Idjit.

The issue is the original claim, this Atlantic hurricane season is
'relatively mild'. Uh huh.

Sure, idjit. For guidance only, errors may be large.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/next.htm

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
September 12, 2004

Tim K. wrote:

and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in
Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic


damage!

Global warming debate aside,

Global warming via hydrocarbon combustion is not subject to debate, it
is well within the 'cone of probability'.

But it wasn't my point so I set it aside.

about the only way to refute that paragraph is
call him a name because it's exactly right on. I've lived on the barrier
island in Brevard County all my life (45 years) and guess what - there
are a
"****-load" more people living here. Comparing storms across decades by
comparing damage *estimates* is absurd.

So, you claim that quantification via estimation, i.e. science by
numbers, is absurd.

I claim that only valid estimation is worthy of direct comparison. Your
estimations do not take inflation of escalating property values into
account. It is invalid. It is not scientifically defensible.
And you call me an idiot. heh, nice.

Yet Another Idjit.

The issue is the original claim, this Atlantic hurricane season is
'relatively mild'. Uh huh.

Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Nice reading skills.

September 13, 2004

"Tim K." wrote in message :

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message :

and the fact that there are "a **** load more" people living in
Florida
than ever did before. You cannot measure weather effects by economic


damage!

Global warming debate aside,

Global warming via hydrocarbon combustion is not subject to debate, it
is well within the 'cone of probability'.

But it wasn't my point so I set it aside.

A simple google search reveals your biases.

about the only way to refute that paragraph is
call him a name because it's exactly right on. I've lived on the barrier
island in Brevard County all my life (45 years) and guess what - there
are a
"****-load" more people living here. Comparing storms across decades by
comparing damage *estimates* is absurd.

So, you claim that quantification via estimation, i.e. science by
numbers, is absurd.

I claim that only valid estimation is worthy of direct comparison. Your
estimations do not take inflation of escalating property values into
account. It is invalid.

Then adjust the figures for inflation and recalculate.

It is not scientifically defensible.

The result still stands after recalculation, by the numbers, including
an unnamed tropical low that killed thousands, by damages, deaths,
number of storms, intensity of storms, duration,, size, frequency,
chronology of storms, etc., other metrics are indeed possible, I'm
sure any reasonable scientific estimation confirms that this is a
'relatively active' Atlantic Hurricane season. Only an idjit would
continue to debate the result.

And you call me an idiot. heh, nice.

No, I called you an idjit. You are also a Troll, and most probably a
Conchy Joe.

Yet Another Idjit.

The issue is the original claim, this Atlantic hurricane season is
'relatively mild'. Uh huh.

Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

You write nonsense.

Nice reading skills.

Conchy Joe Alert!

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/next.htm