Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[Final-Fan]

Nate said:
Final-Fan
"I am not an expert. You are not an expert. I think the experts are right. You think the experts are wrong. Do you see how my position could be considered somewhat stronger than yours? "

Sorry Final-Fan, but Happy Squirrel nuked your argument in advance. Global warming models are highly analogous to the mathematical models used to create the sub-prime financial crisis. In that case, the expert opinion was unequivocally proven wrong. That includes some of the smartest, most handsomely paid people in the world.

The problem with the scientific pro-Global Warming side is that it's every bit as self-interested as the PR line from an oil company executive. My simple, rudimentary understanding of human nature tells me to be skeptical, no equations needed.

And from a common sense point of view, depletion will become the limiting factor to human population growth long before pollution.

First off, I don't believe that the mathematical models are "highly analogous", and in any case there WERE many people warning of exactly what would happen.

As early as the 2003 Annual Report issued by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, Prem Watsa was raising concerns about securitized products:

"We have been concerned for some time about the risks in asset-backed bonds, particularly bonds that are backed by home equity loans, automobile loans or credit card debt (we own no asset-backed bonds). It seems to us that securitization (or the creation of these asset-backed bonds) eliminates the incentive for the originator of the loan to be credit sensitive. Take the case of an automobile dealer. Prior to securitization, the dealer would be very concerned about who was given credit to buy an automobile. With securitization, the dealer (almost) does not care as these loans can be laid off through securitization. Thus, the loss experienced on these loans after securitization will no longer be comparable to that experienced prior to securitization (called a ‘‘moral’’ hazard)... This is not a small problem. There is $1.0 trillion in asset-backed bonds outstanding as of December 31, 2003 in the U.S.... Who is buying these bonds? Insurance companies, money managers and banks – in the main – all reaching for yield given the excellent ratings for these bonds. What happens if we hit an air pocket? Unlike..." ^[114]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis

And Fairfax Financial Holdings does not appear to be a small voice crying in the dark, considering its $28 billion in assets and $6.8 billion 2006 revenue. (sez Wikipedia)

In any case, however, one reason the subprime mortgage problem was allowed to get so out of hand was the pursuit of profit by banks that underestimated the risks of what they were doing because they tuned out the warnings because they really wanted the money. It's human nature, when there's buried treasure and buried land mines, to think of the treasure. You know, I'm starting to see a familiarity after all...

"The problem with the scientific pro-Global Warming side is that it's every bit as self-interested as the PR line from an oil company executive."
Why do you believe that?

"And from a common sense point of view, depletion will become the limiting factor to human population growth long before pollution."
As I said in another thread, "I'm not a big fan of "we're doomed anyway so burn 'em if you got 'em"."