only one problem with what your saying - if there are two side to this coin, either is a belief.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

It's not an either/or situation, Viper. If the coin lands on it's side, there is no conclusion. In this case, the coin is on it's side.

Huh?

50 billion metric tons of what? If you mean CO2, then the answer is it depends.

I can't think you are serious at this point, so I'll pass on any further serious treatment of this post.

lol - i invoke the 50-50 clause. If you don't know or can not draw an informed conclusion, then it is or it is not. placing the odds at 50% chance either way.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

If you could explain it for me, it would be a big help, because the argument mostly devolves into who can be more clever at dismissing the other one.

My bent is more about "moral values" than in science, which is like you said, going with falsifiability.

What I'm saying is that from a moral standpoint, should we not be in the business of keeping our planet clean rather than the business of dirtying it?

Are you trying to insinuate that CO2 is dirty?

How do you define "dirty" in this context?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

look - with all things considered, it would be prudent to start to reduce our production of man made green house gases. the benefits (As i mentioned before - new green industries - new jobs - learning to coexists with nature in the delicate biosphere Earth - or maybe no effect) far out way any possible negative outcome (e.g. loss of petroleum profits, mass extinction, etc.)

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

man made - it is lawfully a pollutant.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

Here are three of my posts which say basically the same thing: Let me know what is unclear about these posts and/or needs more clarification, and we can go from there.

Eagleseven has also made some similar points. As has the Packers fan.

I don't know what is exactly so clever about looking at the science with a scientific approach. On the contrary, it's not too clever at all, as it is quite easy to be consistent from a scientific view.

This is a scientific issue. I have no idea what the principle of falsifiability and morals have to do with each other. I also have no idea what morals have to do with science and its rational analysis. Sure, we have ethics, but that is a whole other topic (and field).

In principle, we do agree on that. However, there is much more to evaluating environmental policy (or any policy for that matter) than such simplistic approaches.

So after 8 pages I'm in. No one (well, no one with any sense) is saying we shouldn't try to reduce the amount of GHG put into the atmosphere. What the prudent are saying is we should not do it at the destruction of our standard of living and without any thought to the economic consequences. If there are economical ways of implementing "greener" technology, than we should implement them. There are some and they are making their way into the market. It takes time but you people want it now. It won't happen no matter how much the scientists tell us the sky is falling. So for greener technology, one problem is we have the government trying to dictate the winners and losers of these technologies instead of the market. (remember what happened to the price of food worldwide when they pushed for ethanol?) In addition, they want to place huge tax burdens on the energy and manufacturing industries which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Just as you promote an equilibrium for the GHGs, there also must be an equilibrium for the economics.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

God made the covenant with man to protect the Earth.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

I agree, except for the part about the case where the science is conclusive. If the science were conclusive that we are heading to our doom, I would say damn the torpedos and go balls to the wall to fix it.

Another issue that concerns me is the economics about implementation of some of these green policies. It appears that some of the economic analyses are not very attractive (but that is not my field at all): Climate EconomicsSo, not only is the science still undecided, the economics isn't either.

If our economics system resembled anything remotley close to something worth saving I would agree. We don't have a choice about the Earth however.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

Obviously we don't. But that is not the point.

This is why you are not a scientist, have no understanding of science, and are a mockery to the entire discussion.

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell