[OT]Re: [oclug]Port 4662

[Brad Barnett]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:59:17 -0500
Mike Thomas <mike at bigrideau.com> wrote:

> 
> > 
> > Kyoto is about reducing greenhouse gases, not reducing pollution. 
> > When our ability to live indoors, eat, enjoy life, etc is put at risk
> > because of some lame (yet costly) attempt to reduce a few gases, one
> > must ponder if any real, tangible benefit will be achieved.  The full
> > economic impact has not been determined yet we've gone ahead and said
> > it's a terrific idea we should all smilingly embrace.  Have Canadians
> > become so stunned that we shoot first and ask questions later?
> > 
> > Now, if it were about reducing pollution - the stuff that harms us all
> > - then I'd more interested.
> 
>    Interesting that you mention "live indoors" rather the just live. 
> Living indoors will be your only choice if we don't start to change 
> things now. I for one will not be content to live in a bubble. 
> Harvesting/burning/using the things that cause the "few gasses" creates 
> tremendous amounts of pollution as well. You can't seperate the two. 
> Even if you could, conclusive proof now exists that global warming is 
> real(I myself was in the "natural climate variation" camp until 
> recently). 

No, there is no conclusive proof.  You simply can not go by current
temperature trends.  This does not mean it isn't happening, it simply
means we can't prove that recent temperature changes have occurred because
of increased CO2.

What "conclusive proof" do you have?  Please don't bother providing any
proof, due to any temperature reading taken anywhere, at any time.  This
isn't proof!  There is nothing severe enough yet to even remotely prove
anything.

Again, this does not mean that global warming isn't happening.  It merely
means that we are unable to prove it by such minor fluctuations in
temperature.  When we have 10 winters in a row without a single below
freezing temperature in Ottawa, even then, we can not "prove" it is due to
global warming.  There are still other factors at work.  Moving air and
water currents, changes in the sun's output, and multitudes of other
reasons could be responsible for such an occurrence.  So could global
warming too.

In short, global warming is probably, maybe happening.  We can't prove
that it is.  We can't prove that it isn't.  Not yet.  However, when it
become apparent that something extremely drastic is happening, it will be
far too late to effect a change through any reduction in greenhouse gases.

Honestly, the price is too high.  We need to reduce greenhouse gases
because the theory is reasonable.  We can't risk to be wrong.

It's sort of like playing Russian Roulette.  I'm a gambling man, but not
that way ;)

> Putting these perfectly good reasons aside for now<g>, tell 
> me how to calculate the economic cost? Each side will rig its own 
> numbers to show how good/bad it is. I think back to the TCO of a PDA 
> article that was psoted a while back. That is the kind of nonsense that 
> exists out there, on both sides of the issue. We will never be able to 
> accurately calculate the cost. That is no reason not to do it. Some 
> industries will be hard hit, others will benefit and even be created. 
> The reality is it starts with Joe Citizen. Many Kyoto targets could be 
> met requiring nothing more than moderate changes in the consumption 
> habits of every day people.
> 
> 
>   Sorry for the off topic reply, this issue seems to bother me more than
>   
> others.
> 
>   Mike.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> oclug mailing list
> oclug at lists.oclug.on.ca
> http://www.oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug