posted May 04, 2007 11:47 PM            

quote:

---

The good news is that those technological breakthroughs are similarly leading the companies to whisper in the ears of the politicians - "it's okay, we can handle this." And that's the best news of all. Companies around the world are now in the lead of their politicians. In fact they're telling the politicians we have to act, we want a framework, we need an incentive mechanism, we need a price structure so that we can move ahead with sustainable energy. I believe we're going to get there. Global negotiations on a truly global framework open in December of this year, in Bali, Indonesia. We've agreed in principle on a Framework Convention on Climate Change, that we must stabilise greenhouse gases. We took an early small step in the so-called Kyoto Protocol, but this only involved a very small set of commitments for a limited part of the world - mainly Europe, because the United States did not even join. Now in December we must have the US and China, and India, and the European Union, and other parts of the world, all coming together and saying we must do this for ourselves and for the future. Nature has spoken more loudly than vested interests. This is not a matter of vested interests, it is a matter of common interest. These steps, from the science to the public awareness, to the technological alternatives, to the international agreements, are the very steps that we will need for all aspects of the Anthropocene. This will be the mark of our new era - science-based global policy-making based on worldwide public awareness. That's going to be true for saving the rain forests, for saving our oceans from over-fishing, for managing water stress, and for choosing population alternatives that are sound for the planet and sound for individuals as well. We don't have to accept the population trends, because people would choose fertility reduction voluntarily in large parts of the developing world, if the alternatives were made available to them. We can do this, and we will learn that the costs of action are tiny, compared with the risks of inaction. Climate change can be solved, according to the best current estimates, for less than one per cent of world income each year, and perhaps well under that, where the potential costs are a devastating multiple of several per cent of world income if we continue on the business as usual trajectory

---

posted May 05, 2007 06:17 AM            

> I once listened to a speaker going on (and on and on) about the evil
> portents of over-population and how "we must do something soon
> or (insert Horrendous End OF The World scenario here)."

I think that's human nature, and it's part of the reason that we have survived as a species. We try to take what we know and predict the future, and prepare for it. If certain people will forgive me for saying so, I think "planning" is a trait that we have evolved over time, and it serves us well.

We must do something soon or global warming will destroy our way of life, and many will die.

We must do something soon or terrorists will destroy our way of life, and many will die.

What's the difference?

It doesn't mean that neither threat is real.

Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? More specifically, remember how it ends? The boy gets eaten by the wolf.

-- Eric

posted May 05, 2007 07:25 AM            

quote:

---

Climate change can be solved, according to the best current estimates, for less than one per cent of world income each year, and perhaps well under that, where the potential costs are a devastating multiple of several per cent of world income if we continue on the business as usual trajectory

---

posted May 05, 2007 09:21 AM            

To paraphrase yourself: "You don't have a clue"

posted May 05, 2007 11:25 AM            

I was going to reply to your uncalled for and totally indefensible remark, but clearly when you've brought the discussion down to this level, there's no point.

posted May 05, 2007 05:04 PM            

Anyway, I'm glad that you decided not to reply with a personal comment addressed to me on the lines of

"Probably grew up smoking grass with black lights, bell-bottom jeans, and a peace sign hanging around his neck."

(Although you couldn't help to say that I brought down the discussion level)

------------------
Rui Rodrigues
“The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.” - Carl Sagan

posted May 05, 2007 05:50 PM            

Let's take the peace pipe, or failing that, some good quality
chocolate for a more benificent state of mind.

Whether you agree with Jeffrey Sachs or not, he delineates real
problems, and offers practical and affordable solutions.

And I believe alleviation of poverty and privation in the world removes
much of the animus that drives terrorism, though unwinding the
violence can take decades to achieve. (Judging by Northern Ireland,
across the water from here).

posted May 05, 2007 06:50 PM            

quote:

---

I was commenting on your post (the last one on the first page of this thread)

---

I guess the only respected comments to be posted here are the ones that simply conform to the accepted reasoning of the, 'more enlightened?'. Well I happen to have a different view point and as one tag line here so aptly states, "chill out, its my opinion and I have a right to it" (or close to those words).

From the beginning of this forum, I have been one of the staunches supporters for its existence. We all started out with logical and (usually) well thought out arguments for our particular view point. Sure, it sometimes got heated but there seemed to always be an overruling respect for one another. It seems to me that things are changing for the worse, especially in the last 6 months or so. Cheap shots seem to be the norm instead of the exception. Honest debate seems to be lost here now in favor of slinging dispersions on other's character, beliefs, or opinions.

Ah but alas, I'm sure even this observation is only going to be fuel for further negativism and sarcasm.

posted May 05, 2007 08:01 PM            

I'm truly perplexed. These...

> Because I don't discuss things with people
> who haven't a clue.

...are your words -- to Rui -- and he was simply throwing them back at you. You also wrote...

> Get a clue.

> Good lord, get a clue.

> Get real and get a clue.

...among others. I'm not trying to prolong a testy moment in the Cafe, but I am at a complete loss to understand why Rui's zinger...

> To paraphrase yourself: "You don't have a clue"

...appears to have offended you so deeply.

> I laid out 4 well thought out and reasoned replies
> along with proof (that Eric so kindly validated for me)

How, exactly, do you believe that my phrase "absurdly inaccurate claim" validates your #1 claim? In what way is...

> This ridiculous comment needs no analysis.

...a well thought out reply (#3) on your part? How is...

> Probably grew up smoking grass

...not "slinging dispersions on other's character"?

Are you the pot or the kettle?

posted May 05, 2007 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

...a well thought out reply (#3) on your part? How is...
> Probably grew up smoking grass
...not "slinging dispersions on other's character"?

---

I also have to accept the fact that nothing here is ever new, different, nor persuasive, hence also non-productive. Before even clicking the submit button one knows the response that will follow and they always fall on the same lines, same reasoning, and same basic premises.

I've found more often than not, that I leave this forum (the Café) bewildered and frustrated with each side carefully calculating their words in an attempt to not be wrong instead of attempting to bring about any change. I openly admit that I too have fallen into this trap myself.

In my days of youth, when I'd spend hours on hours on one side of a chessboard, we would call the situation that the café is in a stalemate and look for other challenges.

I think its time for me to call these never-ending arguments a stalemate as well and see about channeling my efforts into areas that may make a difference.

Its been fun for the most part though, so thanks for that.

posted May 06, 2007 01:20 AM            

quote:

---

Probably grew up smoking grass with black lights, bell-bottom jeans, and a peace sign hanging around his neck.
So lets all sit around the camp fire and sing "koom-bi-ya", shall we?

---

Must have been a bit whimpy in your area Joe. I am an early baby Boomer
and my generation emerged just before the hippy era but we still caught
the English bands (Beatles etc), Woodstock when it happened, Led Zepperlin,
Black Sabbath, Cream, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Jim Morrison first
time around, Janis Joplin and an almost never ending list of talent.

Bell bottoms, Hair past your shoulders, Gunga that was strong enough to
blow your brains out, blondes, ford V8s, the end of the Nam war .....

If you missed it Joe, you have my sympathies, more fun than you could
imagine.

From the Crosby Still nash and Young song Woodstock,

"Well I came upon a child of god,
He was walkin' on down the roaaaaaaaaaad....."

Regards,

hutch at movsd dot com

posted May 06, 2007 08:06 AM            

> nothing here is ever new, different, nor persuasive,
> hence also non-productive

It's too bad you feel that way. I have learned a tremendous amount in the Cafe. For the longest time, before you started talking about carbon-dating mammoth bones, it never occurred to me that we weren't all the same here. I guess I assumed that most PB programmers would be like me: science-oriented geeks, real-world-evidence-driven, always testing and refining theories, and so on. I was surprised to learn that there are PB programmers of all stripe, from YECs to Pastafarians, from Bush-huggers to Clinton-lovers, from young to old, and everthing in between. We are a multi-dimensional array, and none of us have identical values. I have also learned that my views are pretty close to the LBOUNDs -- I'm not as "moderate" and "independent" as I once believed -- and that people at the UBOUND are just as earnest in their beliefs as I am.

You're right, I'm never going to convince you, and you're never going to convince me. We see the universe in fundamentally different ways. But I've learned that your universe is internally consistent; all of the parts work together, and you have a complete, well-considered, heart-felt set of beliefs that explain "everything". I like to think that I have that as well, but somehow our core beliefs are incompatible; we can't both be right. I have thought about your universe more than I ever had before, and I grok it better, so I can't agree with...

> non-productive

posted May 06, 2007 09:23 AM            

Thank you.

And by the way, I couldn't agree more with you on your last post.