We know that the insurance companies are profitable, so, on balance, it's a losing bet.
However, the consequences, if we're wrong, can be pretty catastrophic.
We're just not willing to risk them.
One does wonder whether conservatives have insurance?
And whether, if the state requires it, if it covers more than the state minimum?
If so, are they better drivers?
Do they think they're better drivers?
Do they think the God will protect them?
Do they think that it's only dumb liberals that have accidents?
How many times have we heard, "We don't know how much the Earth is going to warm"
Or, "You have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Interestingly, After Churchill said that, 10s of thousands of British citizens were killed.
It is interesting how smart these folks are.
They know far more than scientists.
They can predict the future.
Heck, if I was that smart, I'd start looking at the stock market.
You've hit the nail on the head its all about balance. I am sceptical (in the real sense of the word) about global warming and I think I have legitimate reasons for that, but I don't think we should take zero steps to try and mitigate any potential negative effects. Of course we should that is only prudent.
My problem with it is that it has become very irrational. Global warming is now going to be (apparently) apocalyptic and therefore no cost is too great. That is not rational, especially when we consider that the "cost" here, especially the opportunity costs for the third world, can be measured in people's lives. We absolutely should have a budget for "potential global warming prevention/mitigation" but that cannot be infinite.
We shouldn't be spending resources on "trying" to figure out if the concept that adjusting atmospheric CO2 will make us feel better when it continues to flood on the food plains of India because I drive a prius and the average temperature of the earth dropped by .38 degrees over the last decade proving that it's getting cooler but the flooods might not be as bad if we tried even harder because it should have cooled .4 degrees but didn't because the Koch brothers are still billionaires.
Actually, if the Sun were to explode in the next 50 years, one thing that might be worth spending trillions of dollars on would be warp travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80...
But, as far as global warming is concerned, I don't think that anyone knows how serious it will be. I find it funny that "skeptics" love to tell us that we can't trust computer models and yet just assume that it can only be better and not worse than projected by these models. We can hope that global warming isn't as bad as some people say it could be, But, we should not be willing to take unnecessary changes.
And as Elizabeth has pointed out, we must develop new energy sources. Thanks to people who were willing to invest in solar power, a possible doomsday scenario, where the price of oil met the price of solar power on the way up has been avoided.
I have zero insurance, I did consider medical insurance (as I am getting on a bit) but the payments were so high and the benefits low, so I started a savings investment account, and have money invested instead, so in the event of ill health I have the ability cover at least some of the bills, with the advantage that if some emergency other than my health occurs, I might be able to cover that instead.
But what we are talking here is not insurance, we are paying to repair a problem, that we dont know whether it exists. we are paying not only with money but also with our economy and jobs, the result is should something go wrong, we will not be in a position to right it.
It is like taking chemotherapy just in case you might have cancer.
1. Have you ever heard of a "false dichotomy"?
"The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced."
2. If we were going to be sensible we would need to make a complete list of "unknown disasters" then determine the likelihood and cost (i.e. the risk) of each one. Then the higher risk events could be addressed first.
3. Would it not be better for human kind to cure problems we already know we have? Child mortality is one such problem: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.D... Why not use some of the $billion a day to help them or to seek a cure for cancer or provide food for the starving?
Your premise is wrong, "We don't know how much the Earth is going to warm, or what will happen if and when it does, so we shouldn't be spending resources on stopping AGW". AGW has never been quantified or proven. You con artists haven't proven that there is even a remote possibility that AGW is real and catastrophic. (In fact you worry mongers were preaching an Ice Age back in the 70s) Until you do, get your hand out of my pocket and leave my liberties alone.
As a bright man once said, "You have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
"Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions. A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything, reject anything, if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his family's or his country's security and safety, whether it actually accomplishes it or not...."
"It works like a charm. A fearful people are the easiest to govern. Their freedom and liberty can be taken away, and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own good - to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their liberty - voluntarily."
―Gene E. Franchini, retired Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court
You and your ilk are making a thinly veiled attempt to control us and take away our money with your imaginary problems. NOW ADMIT IT!
And while you are at it, ADMIT that the science isn't settled, as your question does.
I guess it does come down to probability. I find the likelihood that will will face imminent catastrophe from increased man made CO2 emissions incredibly low myself. I do not want to spend billions or trillions on utterly useless green energy scams that will have no measurable effect on global temperatures myself.
Deaths from natural disasters has gone down. There is no alarming sea level rise. The planet is actually greening with more CO2. Worldwide crop production is at an all time high. Temperatures have not gone up anywhere near what was predicted.
I just don't see a lot of negative effects (so far) from increased man made CO2.
Avoiding known costs. There are an indefinite number of unknown disasters so any strategy based on chasing speculations around is a loser. Do you have a stockpile of weapons against a zombie apocalypse or a killer asteroid? If you don't live it you don't believe it.
Sagebrush's answer is *exactly* the sort of outmoded, outdated, testosterone-fueled, macho, conservative-thinking, self-aggrandizing bollox that annoys me. The fact is that costs of fossil fuels are going to rise. You can cover your ears and shout 'lalalala I can't hear you' very loudly but until someone invents a new economic model, we're stuck with the basic notion that decreases in supply coupled with increases in demand lead to greater cost to the buyer.
We *have* to find alternative sources of energy. Anyone who disagrees with that had better not just give me a thumbs down, but explain how you continue to grow economies, use more power, and keep doing that with fossil fuels for the next century without paying more and more. Anyone who disagrees with the basic premise should then explain how much it will cost the US, for example, to convert away from natural gas when that resource runs out within the lifetime of the kids in primary school. I suspect the thumbs down will be easier ...
So, the point is we're going to have to find alternative sources of energy even ignoring the global warming issue. Sagebrush doesn't accept global warming. He's wrong, but he's entitled to his view. But dealing with global warming and dealing with inevitable issues of fossil fuels that become more expensive as time goes on have the same partial solution.
That's the bit that annoys me. When people whinge about the AGW issue and taxes they seemingly forget that there's a big ticking fossil fuel clock counting down in the background that we have to deal with. Even if AGW was utter nonsense (which it isn't) we're not saving money by doing nothing. We're simply delaying the inevitable panic when the cost of generating power rises, affect a nation's 'competitiveness', stunts economic growth because of our dependence on fossil fuels, and all the while we saw the problem coming and did nothing about it.
Obviously, scope is relevant, as is the potential for fixing the problem. I wouldn't pay billions of dollars to deal with the very, very slim possibility that the sun will explode in the next 50 years, for example. The cost is high, the probability is too low, and the odds of successfully fixing the problem if it does occur are equally low. But if the known costs and unknown disasters are adequately equivalent in magnitude (for example, paying $100 to avoid what you think is probably about a 1 in 100 chance of losing $10,000), as a general principle, which do you prefer?
I ask in this category because a lot of skeptics (and "skeptics") seem to be making essentially this argument: "We don't know how much the Earth is going to warm, or what will happen if and when it does, so we shouldn't be spending resources on stopping AGW". I'm wondering a. if they use this logic for other things, like car/home insurance, and b. what other people think of this logic.
we're also spending Billions on military to avoid big wars too. Over $300B on nuclear alone which have very little chance of being used.
The insurance industry is pretty good at this, and they are convinced of climate change.
My take is that unknown disasters while improbable are the ones to watch out for.
EDIT.. added link on costs
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/upshot...
NGDCs .. As per a Brahmadev's Analogy Story, "Danam" or Donation reduces the melancholy of human beings, whereas for intermediary drinking Angels it could be "Damam" (Holding Up / Onto / Control) and for the non - drinking demons maybe "Daya" or "Compassions" might help reducing the melancholy they might be having .. not very sure though ..
