Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

The point I made, which Pete responded to, was that we never know everything and we have to make do with what we have. The possiblity of error is part of being human. Btw, at Pete, see it was the opinion of people on this thread and not just the "republicats".

I may be the one confused then. I thought you were implying that it was wrong to question science, since we know all the answers. I am not in the camp of people who believe that by not knowing everything we cannot do anything. I am in the camp that says before we head to the caves, and abandon our modern world we should be sure of the imminent melt down. That means to me, reasonable measures taken in response to solid predictions on very likely outcomes.

I was responding to Pete's comment where he said I had put words into Carlin's mouth. You don't seem to disagree with me that Carlin is suggesting (the possibility that) global warming may not be real so I'll move on. But just for the record you are saying you think global warming may not be a real phenomenon?

There have been both warmer and cooler periods, so yes I believe the climate fluctuates. Is it due to anthropomorphic sources? I'm not sure if the science clearly says that, however, it is possible that a possible outcome would be much higher global temperatures. Another outcome might be the diffusion of excess energy into violent storms. There are many theories, but due to the complexity, very few firm conclusions. I am like Carlin in that I believe that human activity impacts the climate and we don't really know for certain where it goes from there. Should we change our behavior? Undoubtedly, for many reasons including this one.

Not sure I get you here. It hardly seems like a critique of a environmental paper to say they had been assuming no recession and there was a major one. However, more to the point (and also a point I made in my last post) if this recession ends and production levels go back to where they were before then we're right back in the same problem. Fine the problem will be stalled by 10 years because of this recession but how does that affect the general problem and whether the U.S. (and the rest of the world) needs to curb their emissions etc.

The government (EPA) needs to react to potential harm to people. If any harmed party can show that the EPA rules are based upon just the possibility of harm in 100 years, the EPA will get sued and lose. The difference is that of a program (which deals with current emissions), versus a penalty imposed by the EPA.

What do Ehrlich's mistakes prove exactly?

That there is always meaningless white noise in any public debate. It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why is Al Gore's science junk? I know one of his slides was a bit off, but that hardly makes the whole package junk science. For the most part, as best I can tell, scientists think his points are good.

Well, according to the British court,

1. The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation<>
   
2. It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"<>
   
3. Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"<>
   
4. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established<>
   
5. The drying of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"<>
   
6. Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"<>
   
7. Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"<>
   
8. The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult<>
   
9. The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"<>
   [st]

   You seem to contrast real vs. hypothetical nonsense. I assume by hypothetical you mean predicted? If so, then I'd rather we avoid *real* disasters in advance and not just wait till they come.

   Hypotheses that are based upon non-scientific guesses are nonsense in my book. For example, to suggest that because temperatures are lower for 11 years means we may be entering into a new ice age.

   Then there is the conclusion of putting all people who believe in the "hypothetical nonsense" you disagree with into the "survivalist bunker in Oregon" group - something I thought you yourself asked people not to do with looney toons and what not.

   No, you misunderstood. There will always be someone who exacerbates or exaggerates the possible outcomes or leads everyone to believe the worst case scenario is the most likely. It is the "End of the World" craziness that leads some to check out of society in advance to "be prepared" for the post apocalyptic "Mad Max" world. In risk management you always couple upside and downside risks with the likelihood of occurrence.