Wally: I’m Wally Cronkquist and that popping noise you just heard ring round the world is the sound of 250 million corks simultaneously celebrating the passage of the Truth in Politics Act. Only two years ago the controversial “Referendum Amendment” passed, allowing individual citizens the right to create their own bills and put them on a national voting ballot. The Truth in Politics Act is the first use of this new process.
With me is Chuck Sneadman, political professor from Harvard, here to explain the new law.
Chuck: Well, Wally, it’s quite simple, really. From this point forward, all politicians are required to receive a chip implanted in their brain that gives them an electric shock every time they try to either lie or spin the truth. At last all political problems will be solved because only honest politicians will stay in power!
Politics and religion haves always had a rocky relationship as the Founders of the United States understood. They sought to alleviate some of the worst conflicts of the two and allow as much freedom as possible for both to thrive. More recent times, foes of religion have used the wisdom of the Constitution to silence religious voices in the public square. Although on the surface what they argue sounds reasonable, the actual practice goes against the spirit and perhaps letter of the law. The freedoms they claim to protect become restricted with vague notions of what is public and private. It is one thing to make a case of disagreement and a different matter to ridicule and accuse without presenting an argument. As no fan of Skousen’s simplistic research, but in agreement with the spirit of Glenn Beck’s ideas , I think both have been treated unfairly to the detriment of honest debate.
The same goes with how those who are most influenced by them, The Tea Party, are continually dismissed. Even when they garner success, such as the latest U.S. election, it is as if they have failed. The truth is those on the left and the right who don’t like them either deliberately misrepresent or seriously misunderstand the movement. An article by Nathan B. Oman that is critical of the religious members ignores the actual history of who comprises the electorate. The vital conservative religious vote is cast as a recently developed nuisance that, “will render conservative religious voices irrelevant to serious political discussion,” compared to more moderate conservatives. It is hard to believe considering voting outcomes over the last 30 years. What will happen is that moderate religious pundits will become irrelevant to other pundits. Continue reading
So, for example, let’s pass legislation that says X, Y and Z happen in case temperatures go up 5 degrees C globally in five years or even 10. The key is, “what are X, Y and Z?” I hope you address that in your next post. — Geoff
This comment from Geoff above reminded me that I wrote a post on Risk Mitigation and Contingency Planning and it never posted. (It “missed it’s schedule” whatever that means.)
As I’ve mentioned before, I do not buy into the idea that CO2 growth and AGW are one and the same. I treat each as a seperate issue and therefore propose different solutions for each. For CO2 growth, I take a risk mitigation approach. For AGW I take a contingency planning approach. This post explains what I mean: Continue reading
This post is a continuation of my last post where I performed my own personal risk analysis of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions. My conclusion was based on the idea that unless I can be completely assured that there is either no impact, no probability, or nothing I can do about it anyhow, that I should always have a risk mitigation action in place. If I don’t, I’m not doing risk mitigation competently.
I now want to consider what I see as the primary problem with the AGW Denier / Skeptic position. I believe they are starting with an assumption that CO2 Growth is either a zero impact or zero probability risk and so their risk score is coming out to be zero. (Since zero times anything is zero.)
Then, given that the risk score comes out to be zero they deduce “no action” is the appropriate response. Continue reading
In the next few posts I am going to go through the thoughts in my own head and explain how I’d go about developing a risk mitigation strategy around Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions.
In this post, I’m going to be assuming as true the four incontrovertible points that Skeptics and Believers both (for the most part) agree upon. If you disagree with one of those four incontrovertible points, then obviously you will disagree with my chosen mitigation strategy.
Also, these next few posts will be a response to three comments that were made in the past. One from Agellius, one from Eric, and one from Geoff. Their comments will allow me to discuss risk mitigation in more detail and explain why a risk mitigation approach is an appropriate one for even for AGW Skeptics. (Particularly if they consider themselves to not be in the throes of a religious war.)