scrapemedic, on 09 February 2012 - 20:22, said:
Okay, can I put it like this.
Chris you pay national insurance based on uncertainty. Its uncertain that you will ever need to benefit from the national health service. But, especially as a stay at home dad, (I am making the assumption that this involves children) you are happy to pay, or let your wife pay for the possibility that if your children ever needs it, there is a health service available, free at the point of entry, to rely upon in an emergency.
There is no emergency right at this point in time, and scientifically you can't prove that there will ever be a point in time when there will be an emergency. And if the worst happens you rely on that service being available, even though right now you can't prove that any help they might offer will be the right help, will benefit you, and won't cause you harm.
But yet you are still happy to pay.
So why is it you balk at paying taxes to try and prevent a possibility one of a number of possible outcomes that may cause you harm. See this is why I don't understand the anti lobby (I still haven't made up my mind), I can't see the harm in trying to prevent the possible outcome that may or may not involve our contribution to it.
In a lot of ways, its not about the science, its about taking the common sense approach, the one that says, until we know enough to say one way or the other, lets do what we can now to mitigate any further contributions we may be making to it.
Liz - I am afraid your analogy is flawed because the examples you speak of are types of Insurance that I or anyone pay to cover against a future eventuality. Paying green taxes because of alleged AGW is like comparing apples with pears.
I will never see the benefits of paying any green tax. I am being asked to pay it as a way of restricting me in doing something, not because I will benefit from it later. If I decide to stick to one child and everyone else does also, my boy and future generations may see the benefit of that eventually.
'Potential' global warming is due to over population and greed. Applying green taxes will not address that issue - the population will continue to grow exponentially.
The climate scientists are seeking to determine the effect only and not the cause. It is backward.
The money should be invested in mitigating the problem in the first place rather than discussing the symptoms.
AGW, or discussion of it when put into context is cohones. Every climate scientist falls at the first hurdle if I put the question of population to them. We all know that if we put the kettle on it will boil. Question is, why do we need that hot water in the first place - and that is the issue.
But for talking about the effects of climate,the scientists would be out of work. They contribute nothing whatsoever to the cause of the problem.
If that sounds really simplistic I am afraid it is simplistic.
Edit: BTW I agree whole heartedly with your last paragraph in relation to what we should be doing and you will see most of my post reflects that view and always has done in previous discussions I have had about it.
That is the only time that I think Andy and John will agree we find common ground. And to me, this issue is the crux of the debate and not the effects Co2 may have. But then, given that we are on a climate forum I suppose it follows that only this aspect should be discussed. However, I don't believe it hurts to put the situation into context and I don't tink the mods should be too critical of that.
If this is not the place then I will go and search out a forum where the cause does get discussed. The cause does seem to be the Elephant in the Room on this site certainly; hence why I probably get a lot of flack for suggesting the rather obvious
I aliken in to giving an opinion at a lung cancer debate where the effects of smoking on cancer are being discussed. I pop up and say "Don't smoke in the first place" and you won't need to discuss the effects.....
I think you get my point
Andres: Apologies for taking your thread off topic with my replies. However, much talk of hypothetical comparators that can, could, should, couldn't comment on the science and that is why this thread has gone off topic.
This post has been edited by Chris Lloyd: 10 February 2012 - 10:39