"You won't get one from a model.
As an example, polling never gives you an exact prediction. But polls are still extremely useful. Criminal profiling never tells you who-dun-it and sometimes is dead wrong. But it often leads to caught criminals. Etc. "
But governments [including the US] is spending billions of dollars based on these models- and this isn't enough, trillions are apparently what is needed, for results that can't even be quantified.
And as it happens there *are* real worries which are out there which are more immediate and quantifiable.
Do you even have a rough idea of how much this has cost the world to date? Do you know anyone who does?
Could it bother you that you might not know?
Keep in mind, no measurable results have happened as result of money spend so far, few of the countries have come close to reaching their targets. And there is still no predictable result if we times it by 10 or 100 what we are currently spending per year.
The only real significant effect you could hope to have on CO2 reduction is nuclear power.
No one on this board disagree with this.
No one knowledgeable and rational disagrees with this.
It's not vaguely arguable.
But of course let instead spend on ethanol, wind mills, and whatever else can spun as a solution.
And why would *anyone* even want mention nuclear power- isn't sort of unPCish?
Current Events » in reply to Why do you need an exact number to start to worry?
re: Why do you need an exact number to start to worry?
The whole thread (128 posts)
- just the link in text form
- Such high-pitched emotions
- Hansen's latest paper
- re: just the link in text form
- "SourceWatch.org"? Sounds very reputable.
- It's "A Convienient Lie"
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- Okay, let's skip to the politics
- It is a political issue
- re: Which facts
- A good place to start
- re: Already seen it
- re: Already seen it
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- re: That's not true
- LOL I encourage everyone to look at the link- It really makes my point
- Ummm, ooookaayy... just one thing before I reply
- re: That's not true
- Break it down.
- re: Break it down.
- never mind (n/t)
- re: Break it down.
- We're talking parts per million
- "THe effects on temperature are negligible at best. "- That is nonsense, the science says otherwise...
- No we are not talking parts per million. And anyway, how would you know SteveS' objection till he has voiced it.
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- More used to seeing it as a percent. (n/t)
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- re: Break it down.
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- A good place to start
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- Most of those organizations don't put the question to a vote by their members.
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- That won't work.
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: It's "A Convienient Lie"
- Global warming.
- "for some reason believe that the issue of Global Warming is a political one"
- re: It's not just the blogs
