5 ms·

In business, war, governance, love, and the climate, people are forced to make decisions based on sorely incomplete data because time is of the essence, and it

In business, war, governance, love, and the climate, people are forced to make decisions based on sorely incomplete data because time is of the essence, and it is all they're ever going to get. If likely exaggeration is to be called out, so too are those who assert that doubt should necessarily imply inaction.

robotrout 18y ago
Why is "time of the essence"? Who told you so? Al "Save the Polar Bears" Gore? I promise you, those polar bears were in no danger. Do you know what a stampede is? It's a frightening thing, where a large herd of animals is frightened and begin to run. They run and run, trampeling anything in their path, killing anything that gets in front of them, and each other, as they run from the danger on their heals. Never would the danger they flee cause nearly the harm that the stampede itself causes. There are groups in the world that can stampede the human herd as well. The amount of stampeding that's been happening in the last 10 years is amazing. We stampede through this Patriot Act, and that Stimulus Plan, and the global warming stampede has been worse than both of them. Take a breath. Time is not of the essence. When somebody tell you that, they're trying to make you rush to judgment and make a poor decision. Timeshare salesman do it, politicians do it, and I'm sorry to tell you, Al Gore does it.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Al Gore has nothing to do with my reasoning process. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.ht... These are the risks mentioned in the IPCC Synthesis report. The seem sound and reasonable. * The report says that around 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the plant and animal species assessed are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperatures exceed 1.5 degree C to 2.5 degree C over late 20th century levels. * The report also points to the likelihood of "irreversible" impacts. For example if temperature increases exceed about 3.5 degrees C, between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the species assessed might be at increased risk of extinction. * Increases in sea surface temperatures of about one-three degrees C are projected to result in more "frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality." * There is also concern over the oceans and seas becoming more acidic as they absorb rising levels of carbon dioxide and the impacts on "marine shell-forming organisms" like coral reefs. * Other reasons for concern focus on the risks of extreme weather events with higher confidence in the projected increases in droughts, heatwaves and floods as well as their adverse impacts. * The report also flags up concern that the poor and the elderly in low-latitude and less-developed areas including those in dry areas and living on mega-deltas are likely to suffer most. * There is high confidence that by mid-century "many semi-arid areas, for example the Mediterranean basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeast Brazil, will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change." * The IPCC summary also expresses concern that any benefits linked with climate change will be gone after more modest temperature rises. The guide, launched after five days of discussions in the Spanish city of Valencia, will be essential reading for delegates attending the upcoming UN climate convention meeting in Bali, Indonesia. * Concern is also raised that new observations linked with the Greenland and possibly Antarctic ice sheets may mean that the rate of ice loss will increase above previous forecasts.
cgranade 18y ago
Well put. Looking at it slightly differently, what are the potential consequences of inaction, and what are the costs of action? Besides global warming itself, there are other consequences of inaction with respect to energy production issues that must be considered: health effects of pollutants, scarcity of fossil fuels, environmental damage in resource development, etc. Trying to frame issues of energy production as "skepticism" versus "alarmism" betrays the complexity of the problems that we face. We cannot allow reasonable doubt to be equated with inaction, but we must take what steps we can with what we do know.
jacoblyles 18y ago
It is weird that you point out a system with 10,000 year cycles as one where "time is of the essence".
- Tichy 18y ago
  I suppose if(!) man-made warming is happening, climate is not really a cycle anymore.
  - dmv 18y ago
    We may adjust the period, but I do not think people are suggesting that we're making an irreversible change to the planet? Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools. The million-year average temperature of this planet is mostly governed by distance to the closest star. Is there much discussion about our planet getting closer to the sun? I don't pay much attention. If it was, I would very much listen to Dr. Dyson. Our fear and panic is about an irreversible change to the planet as we know it -- those complex mechanisms may not be pleasant for current life on the planet (ask the Dinosaurs, or anything living through an Ice Age). Environmentalism is mostly about conservation and continuity of the present biosphere. The planet will be fine, the planet will continue to have a climate, the climate will continue to cycle.
    - Tichy 18y ago
      "Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools." The "various complex mechanisms" are precisely what people are discussing and might not be well enough understood. But sure, eventually the planet will cool again - at the latest when the sun dies.
FictiveEvan 18y ago
AKA the virtue of phronesis, as described by Aristotle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis

robotrout 18y ago

Why is "time of the essence"? Who told you so? Al "Save the Polar Bears" Gore? I promise you, those polar bears were in no danger. Do you know what a stampede is? It's a frightening thing, where a large herd of animals is frightened and begin to run. They run and run, trampeling anything in their path, killing anything that gets in front of them, and each other, as they run from the danger on their heals. Never would the danger they flee cause nearly the harm that the stampede itself causes. There are groups in the world that can stampede the human herd as well. The amount of stampeding that's been happening in the last 10 years is amazing. We stampede through this Patriot Act, and that Stimulus Plan, and the global warming stampede has been worse than both of them. Take a breath. Time is not of the essence. When somebody tell you that, they're trying to make you rush to judgment and make a poor decision. Timeshare salesman do it, politicians do it, and I'm sorry to tell you, Al Gore does it.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
DaniFong 18y ago
Al Gore has nothing to do with my reasoning process. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.ht... These are the risks mentioned in the IPCC Synthesis report. The seem sound and reasonable. * The report says that around 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the plant and animal species assessed are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperatures exceed 1.5 degree C to 2.5 degree C over late 20th century levels. * The report also points to the likelihood of "irreversible" impacts. For example if temperature increases exceed about 3.5 degrees C, between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the species assessed might be at increased risk of extinction. * Increases in sea surface temperatures of about one-three degrees C are projected to result in more "frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality." * There is also concern over the oceans and seas becoming more acidic as they absorb rising levels of carbon dioxide and the impacts on "marine shell-forming organisms" like coral reefs. * Other reasons for concern focus on the risks of extreme weather events with higher confidence in the projected increases in droughts, heatwaves and floods as well as their adverse impacts. * The report also flags up concern that the poor and the elderly in low-latitude and less-developed areas including those in dry areas and living on mega-deltas are likely to suffer most. * There is high confidence that by mid-century "many semi-arid areas, for example the Mediterranean basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeast Brazil, will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change." * The IPCC summary also expresses concern that any benefits linked with climate change will be gone after more modest temperature rises. The guide, launched after five days of discussions in the Spanish city of Valencia, will be essential reading for delegates attending the upcoming UN climate convention meeting in Bali, Indonesia. * Concern is also raised that new observations linked with the Greenland and possibly Antarctic ice sheets may mean that the rate of ice loss will increase above previous forecasts.

cgranade 18y ago

Well put. Looking at it slightly differently, what are the potential consequences of inaction, and what are the costs of action? Besides global warming itself, there are other consequences of inaction with respect to energy production issues that must be considered: health effects of pollutants, scarcity of fossil fuels, environmental damage in resource development, etc. Trying to frame issues of energy production as "skepticism" versus "alarmism" betrays the complexity of the problems that we face. We cannot allow reasonable doubt to be equated with inaction, but we must take what steps we can with what we do know.

jacoblyles 18y ago

It is weird that you point out a system with 10,000 year cycles as one where "time is of the essence".

Tichy 18y ago
I suppose if(!) man-made warming is happening, climate is not really a cycle anymore.
- dmv 18y ago
  We may adjust the period, but I do not think people are suggesting that we're making an irreversible change to the planet? Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools. The million-year average temperature of this planet is mostly governed by distance to the closest star. Is there much discussion about our planet getting closer to the sun? I don't pay much attention. If it was, I would very much listen to Dr. Dyson. Our fear and panic is about an irreversible change to the planet as we know it -- those complex mechanisms may not be pleasant for current life on the planet (ask the Dinosaurs, or anything living through an Ice Age). Environmentalism is mostly about conservation and continuity of the present biosphere. The planet will be fine, the planet will continue to have a climate, the climate will continue to cycle.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    "Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools." The "various complex mechanisms" are precisely what people are discussing and might not be well enough understood. But sure, eventually the planet will cool again - at the latest when the sun dies.

FictiveEvan 18y ago

AKA the virtue of phronesis, as described by Aristotle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis