On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:15:26 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:26:26 +0000, Strider wrote:

How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

Prove to me that invading Iraq, or Normandy for that matter,
was a good idea. I want a mathematically coherent proof not contradicted
by any known facts. Every public policy action, and many non-actions,
are done based on what seems like the best available evidence. They are
experiments, as Carl Sagan once pointed out, without good controls. We
thought Iraq was a threat (well, some people did), and we invaded. We
thought Normandy was the best place to open up a second front, so we
landed there. Both decisions can be argued with, but they may really
have been the best option.

Political arguments cannot be mathematically or scientifically solved.
Cures to global warming are presented as scientific fact. They are
just a stab in the dark.


If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that, for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Trouble is, to prove it to your satisfaction, Manhattan
will have to be under 200 feet of water. There's already ample evidence
that the world's glaciers, including the Antarctic ice cap, are melting.
Whether this is mostly, entirely, or not at all due to the effects of
atmospheric CO2 and other pollution is the subject of the sensible
debate among scientists.

Finish the debate. Present the facts. Then we'll talk.


The sort of change that completely melts the ice caps,
according to the geological record, can happen within a few years. There
are certain feedback mechanisms that cause the melting to accelerate
once it's started. What this means is, by the time it's proved to your
satisfaction, it will be too late. That's why if you live anywhere near
an ocean, I'd suggest moving to higher ground.

None of this is shown to be caused by humans. In fact, it can pretty
well be shown to have happened in the past, long before people could
have had a role.


Actually on second thought, please invest in beach front
property, and stay there no matter what foolishness you might hear
about the sea level rising. It's just those environmentalists trying
to ruin your life. Don't forget, making you miserable is what they
live for.

Yup. The eco movement is so politicized that I have no doubt that the
eco-nut would dearly love to do me and everyone not in agreement with
them harm. Arson and terrorism have become a staple of the
environmental movement.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Then find yourself a nice religion, because science isn't about
proving things to the satisfaction of all who don't want to believe them.
Science is about trying to find the theory that best fits the facts
available. At the moment, that would seem to be that the world is
getting warmer, at least partially due to the effect of atmospheric CO2.
With more data over a longer period of time, that could change.

Religion is about faithin something that cannot be proven. This is
exactly what the eco movement is about., faith is the unproven.


Absolute certainty is for fools. The rest of us just have to
go with what appears to be right.

I prefer more proof.

Strider