John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess you could use this argument in other ways... > > I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. > The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. > Eating healthily seems draconian to me. > Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano > falling on me? > I agree this is a good example of the logical fallacies in this argument. The point that I stress, which has been brought out in this discussion, is that the steps proposed to combat global warming are *not* draconian at all. Every one of them would be beneficial in its own right. Most of them would be profitable. A few might be fantastically profitable in the long term, unless cold fusion materializes. For example, developing gigantic CSP solar arrays in the U.S. southwest would probably soon cross the line to profitability, and they would continue to get cheaper after that until they are fantastically profitable. The technology cannot be used in other parts of the country, but for that matter, oil well drilling technology cannot be used in other parts of the country either. CSP technology could be exported at a profit to North Africa for the African and southern European market. - Jed
