Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle

From: Damien Broderick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:43:02 -0500

At 12:42 PM 4/5/2007 -0400, Rafal wrote:

>### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is
>about 4000$/month.

In the context of the "climate swindle" allegation, this is about as 
relevant as dismissing the claims of an astronomer who reports 
evidence that a killer asteroid is heading our way by pointing out 
that she holidays each year in the Swiss Alps and wears fuck-me shoes.

It might bear on Gore's recommended methods of remediation, but 
that's another point entirely.

Damien Broderick 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---

From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:59:45 -0700

>>### Interestingly, Al Gore's electricity bill in his lavish mansion is

 From what I've heard, he buys carbon credits to offset this.  It's an 
interesting policy - I have to approve the dry rationalist chutzpah of it.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---

From: "Robert Bradbury" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:35:25 -0400

David & the Time article point out an extremely valid point.  The so called
"Green" promoters are not really going green at all.  The bottom line is you
are promoting sustainability or you are not.  Sustainability does not
involve choices which result in a net increase in CO2 deposited in the
atmosphere.

One cannot take it out of the ground, oxidize it and place it into the
atmosphere and claim one is "green" -- it is complete hypocrisy.

Robert

---

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:05:42 -0700

On Apr 6, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>>
> ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
> decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> I feel no pressing need to find solutions.

Predicted by whom and with what biases?  There are many possible  
scenarios and many of them are not so rosy.  How much would a few  
Katrina-like storms cost?  How much for major drought? How much for a  
Katrina or larger storm hitting the oil and shipping of the Gulf more  
directly?  $50 billion?  Pocket change in this time of $9 trillion in  
admitted deficits.    Are you willing to bet on your scenario to the  
extent of saying nothing needs to be done?

And what happens to the rest of the world?

- samantha

---

From: Eugen Leitl <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:19:08 +0200

> > the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few

I've heard some estimates that total world GNP is to take a 20% dive
due to global warming. Looking at Collapse, it appears plausible.
Precipitation shifts->crop failure->famine->migrations->wars, etc.

Notice that I have no idea whether this is true, and don't have
any personal interest debating the minutiae. To me, personally,
waste of energy is an earmark of both poor stewardship, and primitive
technology. I like neither the former, nor the latter.

While I can't match Gore's 4 k$/month electricity bill (if it not be 
apocryphal), our ~720 EUR/year are rather excessive.

> And what happens to the rest of the world?

S’ils n’ont plus de pain, qu’ils mangent de la brioche.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---

From: BillK <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:40:26 +0100

> I feel no pressing need to find solutions.

No overlooked side-effects?

I think I shall take this as a new definition of 'chutzpah'.

One humorous example of chutzpah is often given as follows: "A boy is
on trial for murdering his parents, and he begs of the judge leniency
because he is an orphan."

BillK

---

From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:42:09 -0400

On 4/17/07, BillK <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At home, especially in the Southwest, regions will need to find new
> sources of drinking water, the Great Lakes will shrink, fish and other
> species will be left high and dry, and coastal areas will on occasion
> be inundated because of sea-level rises and souped-up storms, U.S.
> scientists said.

### And a plague of blood-sucking locusts will descend on the sinners!

I absolutely refuse to believe that the persons quoted above have the
ability to model local changes in precipitation fifty years from now.
Absolutely.

Nobody has so far been able to model the pattern of multiyear droughts
that have been coming in and going in the US for thousands of years
(credited with destroying the Anasazi, etc., and responsible for the
Dust Bowl in the 20th century). Now some presumptuous activists claim
that they can not only predict the weather in 50 years, nay, they can
predict it while taking into consideration global warming whose
magnitude is itself estimated with a roughly 500% margin of error.

Nah, I know science when I read it, and this isn't science.

Rafal