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.)
Having taken a break, I am ready to and finish the topic of CO2 emissions. The first thing I would like to talk about is the idea that CO2 Emissions and AGW have become more religion then anything else.
You often hear conservatives say this about liberals. “Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is just a religion to you people!”
As I stated back in this post (and see also the original source post) this is largely correct.
AGW Skepticism as Religion Too
Another fair question is, why do conservatives make a religion out of it too?
“No they don’t!” you shout, religious fervor in your eyes.
No, seriously, most do. You might personally be an exception. Or you might just not realize you aren’t an exception. Give me a chance to explain and then judge for yourself. Continue reading
The so-called Ground-Zero Mosque is getting a lot of press lately, and it appears that the majority of Americans oppose building the mosque mere blocks away from Ground Zero.
Kent Larsen, over at Times & Seasons, posted a thoughtful write-up explaining that Latter-Day Saints should carefully examine their positions on the mosque because of potential impact on building future temples.
I happen to agree with Kent on this issue and on many points of his post, but can think of another reason why Latter-Day Saints should examine their opposition to the mosque- the 11th Article of Faith. Continue reading