From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.elections
Subject: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:49:52 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

I don't know why I'm bothering to followup on this after John response...I guess
I'm just an optimist.

In article <1992Aug25.033510.25538@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.125508.12570@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>]In article <1992Aug19.153426.21442@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]>
>]>As Balling points out, the available evidence indicates that global warming
>]>is more likely to be beneficial than harmful.
>]
>]It amazes me that people can be so naive!  "Available evidence"... "more likely
>]to be beneficial"...  What if we're missing some crucial evidence?  What if we
>]don't really understand the long-term effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and
>]methane?  What if it turns out to be a disaster instead of a benefit?  "Oops,
>]sorry about that--guess we were wrong.  Too bad it's too late to do anything
>]about it now."  Whatever happened to caution?  If we screw up this planet, it's
>]a *major* bummer, not just a lesson learned.
>
>Hey, fellow, learn how to read, eh? I didn't say, and Balling didn't say, 
>that it WOULD be more beneficial than harmful.

Hey, fellow, learn how to read, eh? I didn't say that you or Balling said that
it WOULD be more beneficial than harmful.  You/he indicated that it was more
likely to be beneficial.  Please explain where in the paragraph above I led to
you believe I thought you/he were *certain* it would.  I was only trying to
point out the risk of being wrong.

>]>The most likely warming comes at high latitudes at night. Furthermore,
>]>increased precipitation, and increased CO2 concentrations, would improve
>]>agricultural productivity. 
>]
>]More unbounded naivete.  Do we get our "money" back if these happy scenarios
>
>More inability to read.

More inability to think.  Are you just quoting these happy scenarios to pass
the time, or do you think they support your position of not taking action to
reduce CO2 emissions?  If the former, just say so and I'll go away.  If the
latter, please respond to the points I raised.

>]>He also shows very impressively that even if you accept the global warming
>]>hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to take immediate action, because
>]>the environmental impact of taking action now rather than 5 or 10 years from
>]>now is negligible, while the societal impact is substantail.
>]
>]Brilliant logic.  But what if we take modest measures now?  If it turns out, 10
>]or 20 years down the road when we know everything there is to know about the
>]carbon cycle, that our fears were unfounded, we can relax and undo those
>]measures.  If it turns out, though, that our fears *were* justified, at least
>]we won't have been compounding the problem for those 10-20 years.  And, as they
>]say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  It'll be much harder to
>]undo the excesses of those years and lower CO2/methane emissions to acceptable
>]levels than it will be to simply continue reduced emissions or reduce them
>]more.
>
>Look, this would be a lot easier if you would read what I write
>before emoting.

I did, and I wasn't "emoting".

>First of all, I wrote "5 to 10" and you converted it to "10-20." Any reason?

You're wrong.  I didn't "convert" your numbers to mine.  I considered yours
unrealistic and substituted mine.  Yours were pulled out of thin air, so were
mine, and it makes no difference whatsoever in this debate which is more
accurate.

>I further stated that it makes negligible difference whether we start now or
>later, but you ignored that completely.

I did not.  I explicitly stated that any improvement started now would lessen
the future effort if further cuts are required.  Do you dispute that?  Whether
it turns out to be an insignificant savings or not is academic.  If we take
reasonable measures and they have no impact, we're no worse off than if we take
no actions--in fact we'll be in much better position to determine our ability
to take action that would be significant, having gone through the experience.

>Finally, you assume an ounce of prevention, when it is more reasonable
>to assume a ton of prevention, which might not be needed, and which
>is almost certainly not needed NOW.

OK, if I buy that we need a "ton" of prevention, what basis do you have for
your claim that reasonable measures would constitute an "ounce", and that an
ounce now wouldn't be better than nothing at all?

And why didn't you respond to the rest of the article?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: talk.environment