Finding the right attorney can sometimes be difficult, like anything in life there are good ones and bad ones.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have been transferring the carbon in peat, coal, gas and oil from the earth to the atmosphere. I think we are hosed. Americans still have an appetite for overweight, high-slung station wagons and manly trucks. India and China are building 650 coal-fired power plants. We have our gas-guzzling military machine. If a pack-a day smoker quits after 40 years, he is not out of harm’s way. If we could reduce our CO2 emissions to zero over the next 5 years, the damage is still done. Larson B would not grow and then reattach itself to Antarctica. The Greenland ice cap would not unmelt.

Google Thermohaline circulation to understand why the British and northern Europeans are concerned about climate change. If the circulation stops, the Gulf Stream tempered mild climate gets a lot colder at the same time that sea levels rise.

Expect your grandchildren to tug on your sleeve and ask, “Hey Granddad, what kind of car did you drive back in the first decade?”

Good night and good luck.

Before you criticize others for not being “critical thinkers” maybe you should first read the words a post rather than trying to read what is not their and what you “think is ” between the lines!

Nowhere in my post did I say or suggest that green house glasses are not warming the planet, because as a scientist myself I know otherwise.

Just because a post contains two parallel cases does not mean they are equally damaging or even similiar, how did you come up with that piece of logic?

And last if I did not believe in global warming, why would I say that we only have one planet and should err on the side of caution?

Therefore, the problem was not me writing in a confusing manner, but rather with the manner in which you read!

You should consult the findings of your fellow scientists – EPICA – the European Project for Ice Coring

You will note that there is no mention of Al Gore, Bono, the penguins from ‘Happy Feet’ or any other ‘non-scientist activist, politician, celebrity type’ – neither human nor animated.

I will start you off with this little excerpt and then you can hit the link to read the rest:

“We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years,” said project leader Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

From: “CO2 ‘highest for 650,000 years’ “

By Richard Black

Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

Enjoy.

The link between Saddam and WMD’s could not ‘unequivocally be established’ – but that didn’t stop the administration from recklessy rushing headlong into a complete and tragic mess of a war …

But now, they can’t budge to do the right thing on global warming because they don’t see an “unequivocal link” …

It is almost like they say “okay – which option will f#ck up the largest amount of people … okay, let’s do that ! ”

Incredible …

Comment by criticalthinker — November 30, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

Thank you for the clarification. But the way you originally stated your proposition was clearly misleading. The parallel structure implies that you are talking about damages of similar type, presumably environmental. By the way, global warming has the potential to cause both massive environmental AND economic damage. Also, taken at face value your post suggests that you think it is possible that greenhouse gases aren’t warming the planet, which of course runs counter to the universal consensus among scientists.

I am nervous about the supremes throwing this out on the technicality. If so, the congress must legislate a new definition of pollutant into the clean air and clean water acts..

My post was an intellectual exercise for people to contrast damage caused by taking the two course of actions.

Since you like RealScientist missed that boat, I repeat.

The damage in the first case is economic and can be fixed.

The damage in the second case is enviornmental and cannot be fixed.

My last statement is that we should err on the side of caution means I am FOR the FIRST case and AGAINST the SECOND.

Sheesh……

I did not spell out what damage is, so that people could contrast the two positions in their own minds for themselves.

But since that was too tough an intellectual exercise for you here is it spelled out:

The damage in the first case is economic, and it is minimal damage.

The damage in the first case is catostrophic, and it is maximal damage.

Why do you think my last statement was that it was better to err in the side of caution?

Understand now?

RealScientist- Here you pose a complex question. In other words, you conjoin two unrelated points that are conjoined by a single proposition. If you want to sway the viewpoints of your opponents, wouldn’t it make sense to not treat them like idiots? I understand your passion for the topic in question, but really, what are you trying to accomplish by using this form of argument?

You forgot to mention that the green house gas emissions are HUMAN produced. Artificial. Not natural. If we, the humans produce less green house gases, the effect is only to revert to a cleaner air.

An example: you are (suposedly) a cocaine addict. The less you snort, the better for your health. Less damage to your body and brains. There isn’t a “minimum” of cocaine snorted. The ideal level is zero. No damage in snorting less every day. Maybe you would need to attend some clinic for a total recovery (Kyoto Treaty), but even if it’s expensive, you’ll gain years of life. You see? Money against years of life. I prefer life, no doubt about it.

If we DO NOT reduce green house gas emissions and we are WRONG, and they ARE warming the planet, what is the damage and can we fix that damage.

The damage will be enormous. Milions of people dead, money lost, cities lost, health damaged, maybe end of the human civilization.

Erring on the side of caution never hurts and it always better to be to early than too late, because we have only one planet!

Comment by criticalthinker — November 30, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

Erring on the side of caution has hurt a lot of people.

Let’s suppose, again. We are in the main deck of the Titanic. An iceberg has just ripped our unsinkable boat. The sailors are running and preparing the evacuation, shouting “everybody out of the boat now!”. You see the rats jumping to the water.

What else do you need to run for your life? Or will you wait for a formal declaration of the ship’s captain? Maybe he is dead or too busy mantaining the boat afloat.