Get a Grip!

Video Clip Summary -
1] Do we need to convince people the earth needs saving?
Yes, it's true, but baffling that it is true.

2] Onus is on the people who doubt the existance or extent
of man made climate change to prove it's not worth doing
something about, just in case.

3] Climate Change is happening.
Man is responsible.
Every reputable scientist believes this.
Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

4] Everyone qualified, says it will make the planet uninhabitable.

5] Describes the action by a parent who discovers a 0.1% chance of a product killing a child who will take back the product instead of rationalizing and continuing to use it.

This would happen until the opposite were proved, that it is, in fact, safe.

6] We should follow this same reasoning (course of action for global warming prevention) until climate change is found to be false.

So, let's review. (Assuming for the moment 1,2,3 and 4 are true)
_________________________________________
- For the child's item -

A] Action is to return the item.
B] Time frame item could cause death - immediate to a few years
C] Each child's item is a one time issue, per parent. (But happens periodically through time.)
D] $$ lost by the parent? - $0 to a few hundred, depending on the return policy.
E] Possible result - home is returned to "before threat" safe condition, child continues to live.

- For climate change -

A] Action(s) is(are) . . .
B] Time frame . . .
C] How often . . .
D] Cost(s) . . .
E] Result(s) . . .

So, David, how come people aren't hopping all over this?

- For climate change -

A] Action(s) is(are) . . .

Systemic reductions in fossil fuel use via progressive taxation on their consumption. (The solution I've always advocated.)

B] Time frame . . .

Until atmospheric concentration of CO2 stabilizes at a level that most experts agree poses minimal risk to the environment.

C] How often . . .

Like asking how often should I should buy life insurance.

D] Cost(s) . . .

Brutal. Horrific. Borderline Stalinist collectivization plan in the Ukraine:

Over time Western consumers would have to suffer the horrors and indignities of energy efficient homes and smaller, fuel efficient cars. NASCAR tickets would go through the roof. The psychic blow to "free" market ideologues is beyond cost.

But do it for the motherland, comrade.

E] Result(s) . . .

Mitigating the well documented risks our current actions pose to the environment.

how come people aren't hopping all over this?

You tell me, Paul.

Its the simplest of sense: risk mitigation by taking steps *that will have to be taken anyway* by some generation in the future.

You and I have had this discussion--which stops being a discussion at the point where you make statements like . . .

. . . as the general idea here is that we need to get off our "fossil addiction", using them up will hasten that, no? --Paul

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php

. . . and in response to the idea that we should regard the energy needs of future generations?

we must use it [fossil fuel] as fast as possible. (btw - how do you assign property rights to those not born?), Irrelevant (or false premise, I'll have to think about which.) --Paul

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php#commen…

And defending it to the death in the face of all logic.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/07/regional_climate_response…

You've shown your hand in this, Paul. You're clinging to this crazy idea that resisting action on climate change is a noble posture against deadly wealth reduction even though that wealth reduction will have to happen *anyway* for someone in the future--that somehow completely ignoring climate change and doing *nothing* to mitigate it is actually the heroic and noble thing.

If you just don't give a shit, just say you don't give a shit, Paul.

Well, Skip,
All valid comments, (especially mine you pulled up)
But they don't answer the question now do they?
I think you can do better.

The question of "why people aren't hopping all over this"?

Since it requires me to answer for *you* and those like-minded, I really cannot answer can, can I Paul?

You tell me: Why aren't you hopping?

It's not really about "like minded" or not.
I would think it would be of real interest to those who think we should be further along the curve by now.

The provider of the video, David Mitchell, can't understand why all people won't "hop on board", yet he unknowingly (apparently) provides the answer.

"The provider of the video, David Mitchell, can't understand why all people won't "hop on board", yet he unknowingly (apparently) provides the answer."

If he provides the answer, why did you ask him in post #1:

"So, David, how come people aren't hopping all over this?"

If he's answered it, then you already know.

Oh, I get it, you were frimpling his udfile and wasting everyone's time.

Paul, please stop trying to be "V" from *V for Vendetta.*

If you think you have a point, will you please just state it in comprehensible language instead of this self-indulgent mosaic of riddles?

Of course Paul could just be honest: http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/366e0640b794012e2f8f00163e41dd5b?width…

Hmmm.

Lets consider: should we click on a bare link that has no reason for why we ought to click on it, where the domain name means nothing other than looking like a clickspam site? Or should we not?

I'll take option 2, please, Bob.

For those, like Wow who are afeared of the t'internet, the Rabbett has the cartoon in question here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-truth.html

Now, who's Bob?

Bob was a presenter for a UK quiz show Blockbusters.

And I'm not afraid of the internet, Chris, random links are spammarkers, especially with "uclick" in their name. Why the hell pay spammers?

Actually, the cartoon does provide a bit of a hint.

Let's see if some of the "denialist trolls" (is that the latest or adequate putdown in use?) weigh in.

So your brilliant point is encoded in the video--if we just have the wit to see it?

Paul, this is stupid.

Skip,
Paul said cartoon, not video, so presumably he means Chris's link to the Doonesbury cartoon at RR. "Bit of a hint" is of course vague enough to be worthless, while providing enough of a fig leaf to resemble an actual contribution to a discussion.

From the cartoon and the cryptic reference, Paul is apparently saying that climate science is sound but we are all bound to follow short term economic interests rather than deal with long term risks.

But is this prescriptive or descriptive?

Paul will not say. He likes to take the posture of:

"I'm making a point, unless it's not a good one, in which case I'm not, just to hedge my bets, but if you really think about it, its really clever, looked at a certain way, but you have to really see the subtleties of it the thing, which I'm not going to identify, in case they really weren't there in the first place, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, especially since now I forgot what I started saying in the first place."

I think that's pretty much nailed every single one of Paul's statements on this blog.

Remarkably kind responses for this group, thanks.

But, come on guys, where's the ol' college try?

And although I'd like to see a few of the non koolaid drinkers weigh in, I'll ask Skip to run on down to the Econ Dept for help.

Now , Skip, you're probably gonna have to vist a real Econ dept, not one of them librul ones, to get real help. (just kiddin, shouldn't matter for these micro issues)

very nice video but i don't understand this point that Everyone qualified, says it will make the planet uninhabitable. overall an interesting video thanks regards surgical Blog