Automotive Bailout vs. the morons in Washington

[Feanor]

...
The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

• What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
• What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.

It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

[kexodusc]

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

• What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
• What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.

It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

I just wrote a rather long-winded post that said the exact same thing, in way more words.

Well done.

From a risk management perspective, working now to prevent global warming is the only logical conclusion. Even if it turns out to be a myth. It's because we don't know, and because there's reasonable evidence and cause to worry, that we should commit some resources now, not 100% of efforts, but something meaningul to try and keep on top of things.

The consequence of error is catastrophe.

I'd rather give posterity the benefit of hindsight to ignore the global warming myth, than to burden them with floods and fires, and droughts and dirty air, and all the bad stuff global warming is predicting.

For me the question is do I take responsibility and accept a tolerable, affordable, small share of the cost now, or do I ignore it for whatever reason and place all the risk on future generations to benefit me today?

But I'm only 1 vote.

[JSE]

For me the question is do I take responsibility and accept a tolerable, affordable, small share of the cost now, or do I ignore it for whatever reason and place all the risk on future generations to benefit me today?

But I'm only 1 vote.

My thoughts exactly. I think we all need to take responsibility to do what's best for the health of our planet. But let's not get carried away with spending billions and trillions on solutions to problems that may or may not exists. Spend the money and time wisely on things that will have a direct positive impact. Fuel efficiency, cleaner fuels, less polution, etc are all things we can do now.

But again, doing the above things are independent on whether GW is real or not.

[JSE]

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

• What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
• What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.

It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

Well said but,

Like I said in previous post, Global Warming and our world's environmental health are two different things. They "may" be related but they are two completely different issues.

I love the fact the world (well some of the world) now has a sense of urgency about our environment and I love the fact people are more concerned than ever. I hope it continues. We clearly need to make some drastic changes before it's too late.

However, I do have a problem with the insistence that "Global Warming" is something that is here to stay and that it's caused by mankind. Like it or not, there is increasing evidence it may not be on both accounts. We just don't know.

I don't think Gore or the scientist promoting GW thought the "theory" (yes, nightflier it's only a theory) would catch on and become the huge issue it is today in our world. I think they have no choice now but to uphold their beliefs. Some however, have changed their minds and have spoken out about the effects, extent and causes of GW. Of course they have been attacked relentlessly. Wonder why?