THE CHENEY DOCTRINE

The Cheney Doctrine for preemptive war has notoriously been termed the 1% solution.  Apparently, the notion is that if there is a 1% chance that another country could use, or help a terrorist group use, a WMD against the United States, then the U.S. has the right to preemptively strike that nation to prevent a future use of a WMD on the U.S.. 

I have long thought as I heard the bubble heads debate global warming how ineffectively the real scientists argue their points.  They concede before the argument that they must prove to a scientific certainty that global warming exists, and thereby lose before they even begin the debate.  The real standard on this, and on such other issues as the levels of mercury allowable in our drinking water, etc., should be just like Cheney's 1% solution.  For the outcome is exactly the same.  If there is a 1% chance that global warming is occurring, then we must preemptively strike at the sources of global warming.  We need not prove to a scientific certainty that something is killing us:  it is sufficient to prove that something might be killing us.  That "something" must then be eliminated from our environment until it is proved to a scientific certainty that it is not harmful to us.  This is the sea change in attitude progressives must bring about, even in our own scientific ranks. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 259 comments) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 7:14:13 PM
 

Excellent point

If we accept Cheney's argument, it sure applies in spades to global warming.

by Dave Lindorff (301 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 8:23:48 PM
 

90%?

If there's a 90% chance of a mass extinction event occuring in our lifetimes, then it is already far too late to start worrying about it. I think that is probably more likely the case. The politicians know that it is too late and will not say anything because it would cause a global panic. Better to let everyone die out quietly than to have to deal with the rioting, looting, rape and murder that would happen when you tell everyone there is no hope left. If it is too late, I would be thankful to the governments of the world if they didn't tell anyone so I could live out my final days without fear of being set upon and killed by my neighbors.

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 8:50:33 PM
 

You give the politicians too much credit for brains

Most of them are really stupid people who don't know a lick of science, and simply don't believe the evidence being presented to them, if they even listen to it or read it. They are so busy ammassing ill-gotten wealth and screwing the rest of us that they don't even think about this kind of serious stuff.

 Sadly, the general public is even stupider.

by Dave Lindorff (301 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 9:16:00 PM
 

I don't think carbon emissions are to blame

I'm no scientist and by all means a "lay man" but common sense goes a long way. CO2 accounts for about four hundreths of a percent by volume of the atmosphere. That is .04%. Think about how minuscule that is. This is up about 30% since the dawn of the industrial revolution. That is a .012 percent increase by volume. Of that, man made CO2 releases account for about 4% of the total CO2 currently being released to the atmosphere. That is .0016 percent by volume of the atmosphere. That deserves repeating; .0016%. These are "trace" amounts. These amounts are so small that nearly all studies are measured in parts per millions or parts per billions because percentages don't do it justice.

C'mon, really? I have a hard time believing something of such small proportions could have much of an effect on anything. Say no to a Carbon Tax!

Not to mention the effect of CO2 on temperature is questionable. Acording to A publication of the National Center for Public Policy Research, National Policy Analysis: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA349.html, "carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect - whose ability to absorb heat is quite limited".

One of many sources: Enviroment Agency of the UK: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444255/446867/255244/substances/31/?&lang=_e

by Keith Fisher (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 11:25:56 AM
 

Ah! Correction

According to Universal Industrial Gases, Inc: http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html, "The rate of increase in carbon dioxide content of air is currently more than 2 ppm annually."  And given man made emmissions only contribute to 4%, we only contribute .0008% by volume annually.  That's an awful small number.

by Keith Fisher (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 11:48:06 AM
 

The percentage is irrelevant. It's the change that matters.

Think about plutonium, or cyanide, and the minute amounts it takes to kill a person. In the case of plutonium it's literally a few atoms that do the trick.

Likewise, one volcano blowing up (Krakatoa), caused a year in Europe with no summer (snow in July). How much volume do you think the dust from that one volcanic eruption occupied compared to all the atmosphere?

The point is that CO2 is a very potent blanket for infra red light, and it's transparent to visible light, so like a roach motel, the light energy comes in and reaches the earth, but it can't check out as heat.

 You are trying to apply common sense but science is not always so obvious. The point is that C)2 can be shown in the lab, and in the history of the earth's ice-age cycle, to be a potent global warming causal factor, and we are doubling the amount of it in our atmosphere, and in danger of trebling it.

 Worse yet, at some point our actions will release methane, which is mor than 20 times as potent as CO2.

 

by Dave Lindorff (301 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM