SDRick said: ↑
I am surprised that this type of analysis and data is irrelevant. How does one make difficult and effective policy decisions affecting millions or billions if you are ignorant, uninterested or ignore the length or severity part of the equation?
So you came back with..
You're right... no one should buy health insurance unless they have some type of analysis and data on when they're going to get sick and how much it's going to cost them.....
.
Yours is a rather weak analogy that somehow twists my thoughts for you to conclude that therefore no one should buy health insurance??? I was advocating using the best data available for decision-making, so using your analogy whether to buy health insurance may depend on your nationality\country of residence, availability and quality of health care, religious beliefs, health, age and the cost of insurance in relation to your income or savings etc. For me, those factors would not be irrelevant. Perhaps for you they are.
While analogies are not always particularly accurate they can be somewhat illustrative. You started with a health analogy so let me try one that may fit our discussion. Allow me the license...
A couple of hikers are in the wilderness and feel they may have a medical emergency. Fortunately they have cell reception and are able to get Dr nwdiver and Dr SDRick on the phone.
hiker "Dr., we are in the wilderness and my partners temperature is going up and is bleeding.
nwd "you must get the temperature and bleeding under control ASAP"
hiker "yes Dr. but how?"
nwd "can you describe the bleeding?"
hiker "irrelevant"
nwd "how long has your partner been bleeding, how severe is it?
hiker "irrelevant"
nwd "is there a lot of blood loss?
hiker "irrelevant"
nwd " how far are you from a hospital or airport"
hiker "irrelevant"
nwd "OK, I need you to put on a tourniquet above the wound"
hiker "I don't want my partner to lose his limb"
nwd "irrelevant"
hiker "will the bleeding stop"?
rick "no matter what, the bleeding always stops".
I realize that the analogy has flaws and not perfectly germane but thanks for letting me have a little fun. So let's not focus too much on that and for the sake of argument we can stipulate that you are correct that policy and decision makers should not be concerned with the data you first deemed irrelevant. Fine. So let's focus instead on the "ASAP" part of your statement as you like to say. The devils are in the details but almost everyone prefers not burning fossils given a better alternative (unless fossil fuel is part of your livelihood).
So again, give me a little leeway. You say ASAP, but what does that mean? The soonest and most radical ASAP approach that I can possibly imagine would be some kind of executive or governmental order tomorrow that would ban the use, sale and transportation of fossil fuels. We can debate the ethics but chaos would ensue, the economy would collapse, people would die but there eventually would be some semblance of order and survival. But then of course there is China and India and the rest would need to follow suit. So forget the fantasy.
Perhaps you might mean ASAP as in as soon as practical? That makes a little more sense, but what does that mean? Many here agree that the true cost of our addiction is not reflected in the cost of fossil fuels. For informed decisions we do need to account for these externalities just as we do need cost-benefit analysis (with data you deem irrelevant). So now all we have to do is come up with the best policy to implement a withdrawal from our nasty addiction ASAP.
Easy- peasy.
