Global Warmists back off on prediction

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Equation for global warming.

X = Man made global warming
Y = Natural global warming
X + Y =10
Find X

Your reasoning reminds me of this scene in Fight Club:

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.

...except that X, the consequential cost, is probably a lot higher than the cost of fixing the problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Invest in high ground.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by HLJ

...except that X, the consequential cost, is probably a lot higher than the cost of fixing the problem.

There are fixes and then there are pretend fixes. Kyoto was a pretend fix akin to changing the oil in that rear differential. A public relations stunt saying, "We care!" Fully implemented, it would have very slightly delayed our reaching whatever number we're saying is too warm. (I say this assuming that CO2 doesn't follow warming but is causing it.)

I want us off fossil fuels for political and environmental reasons. I do, however, come back to the motives of the fear-mongerers. Conveniently enough, the biggest supporters of the Global Warming theory also support command economies a proven threat to humanity.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Griff

There are fixes and then there are pretend fixes. Kyoto was a pretend fix akin to changing the oil in that rear differential. A public relations stunt saying, "We care!" Fully implemented, it would have very slightly delayed our reaching whatever number we're saying is too warm. (I say this assuming that CO2 doesn't follow warming but is causing it.)

I want us off fossil fuels for political and environmental reasons. I do, however, come back to the motives of the fear-mongerers. Conveniently enough, the biggest supporters of the Global Warming theory also support command economies a proven threat to humanity.

The only clear way to get off of fossil fuels is to use less - a lot less. For the forseeable future (a vague term that), there is no alternative fuel that can displace more than a small percentage of our current oil consumption. Nothing. Not ethanol nor biodiesel nor DME nor hydrogen nor electrons. We can achieve more through efficiency and conservation than we can through all the ethanol that we could produce from corn. This is briefly discussed in the 20 in 10 thread.

[xoxoxoBruce]

[Homer] Orrrrr, we could use more, to use it up quickly, then there wouldn't be any to fight over. [Homer]