Cont’d

You also don’t understand zero sum games. In terms of climate change issues, our cake is the planet; you cannot make the cake bigger. To solve the issues facing us, we (humanity) must work together for a non-zero end game (positive end game to be more specific).

The only way to do this is if all the stakeholders (while recognising each other’s differences) work together to overcome a common problem. It is not, nor has it become, a binary outcome as you state. Politicians and economists, social and religious structures, and most reasonable people recognise there is a global problem. They are contracting or converging to have a win-win ... a positive sum end game (i.e. no losers in the big scheme of things).

Am I optimistic? I would like to be, but no ... not really. Whilst I’ll trust my science, I am losing ‘faith’ in the human condition :-(

Having said that, I think I will go and have a drink :-)

Later.

Q&A, thanks for the follow up and the points you raised. Having previously agreed that our debate is less about science and more about a socio-political phenomena, it’s disappointing that we have to go back to science. All I can do is refer you to my previous points addressing these, to which I might add, you have not responded.

<<I have to say this spindoc, it is patently clear that you (and people like mil-observer) still do not understand the scientific process.>>

Now that was not very nice was it? I can’t speak for mil-observer, but to trash my 40 years in engineering and science does not reflect well on you.

<<You also don’t understand zero sum games. In terms of climate change issues, our cake is the planet; you cannot make the cake bigger.>>

Actually I do understand. In terms of “climate change issues” the cake is the “issues” not the “planet”. I think you transposed the “object” just to give yourself “wiggle room”. I might add that the “issues cake” is restricted artificially by the limitations imposed by the AGW’ers. By limiting the debate to pre-formed parameters, e.g. the globe “is” warming, the cause “is” atmospheric carbon and the answer “is” an ETS, the debate is prevented from including other considerations (AGW’ers stopping the debate cake from being grown).

<<Politicians and economists, social and religious structures, and most reasonable people recognize there is a global problem.>>

Not nice Q&A, Two points. Firstly, I’m not a politician, economist or a social and religious structure, and because my views differ from these, that means I fail as “reasonable person”. Secondly, what on earth have these people got to do with science? Their “scientific” views have absolutely no value, their socio-political views do.

(continued)

Continued)

As to the matters of biosphere science, I can’t comment, I’m not qualified in the discipline. What I will address are your comments about Newton and Einstein. Science is based upon doubt but supported by products of our imagination, we consider possibilities, probabilities then model them, then work out some contingencies. All scientists try to progress from soft science towards hard science. The climate change debate is “soft” science at the moment.

It does not serve your case well to suggest that <<Einstein’s theories are not probable enough, not conclusive. >> Tell that to the victims in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Yes, science is never finished however; we can all recognize the bits that are “hard science”.

As pointed out in a previous post, “As to whether we are talking “soft” or “hard” science? I can readily accept a continuum where soft science is a “one” and hard science is a “ten”. Then we can evaluate how “hard” the science must be against the magnitude of the problem. I feel this debate has been promoted as “high” magnitude in order to allow “soft” science as acceptable”.

I think I’ve taken each of your points head on and responded to them, if any were missed please point me to them. Since you appear to avoid taking key issues head on and seem reluctant to do so, I guess we have reached an impasse; we will have to agree to disagree.

Shame really, we covered some good starting points but failed to make it to a conclusion.

Catch you on another thread I’m sure, enjoy your drink :-)

I'm sorry spindoc has decided to take his ball home without letting me catch up with the rest of his issues.

Ball, bat and wickets still in play Q&A. Just thought from your comments that you were all tied up with "busy". Would love to keep the dialogue going.

Q&A, still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of the issues?