Trump
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:35pm
SCOTUS
- haresfur - Apr 26, 2024 - 4:59pm
Mini Meetups - Post Here!
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 4:02pm
Australia has Disappeared
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 2:41pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- Alchemist - Apr 26, 2024 - 2:00pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 26, 2024 - 1:55pm
NY Times Strands
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 26, 2024 - 1:38pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- westslope - Apr 26, 2024 - 1:18pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 26, 2024 - 12:53pm
Breaking News
- kcar - Apr 26, 2024 - 11:17am
Radio Paradise sounding better recently
- firefly6 - Apr 26, 2024 - 10:39am
Neil Young
- Steely_D - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:20am
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:08am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:02am
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:01am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 6:03am
Radio Paradise Comments
- miamizsun - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:09am
Environmental, Brilliance or Stupidity
- miamizsun - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:07am
The Obituary Page
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 26, 2024 - 3:47am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:24pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- islander - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:28pm
Things You Thought Today
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:12pm
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 12:30pm
Ask an Atheist
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 11:02am
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:36am
Afghanistan
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:26am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:00am
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:46am
The Abortion Wars
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:27am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- ColdMiser - Apr 25, 2024 - 7:15am
What's that smell?
- Manbird - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:27pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:20pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:55am
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- rgio - Apr 24, 2024 - 8:44am
TV shows you watch
- Beaker - Apr 24, 2024 - 7:32am
The Moon
- haresfur - Apr 23, 2024 - 9:29pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- Bill_J - Apr 23, 2024 - 7:15pm
China
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 5:35pm
Economix
- islander - Apr 23, 2024 - 12:11pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 11:05am
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- sunybuny - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:53am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- Red_Dragon - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:42pm
Ukraine
- haresfur - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:19pm
songs that ROCK!
- Steely_D - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:50pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- q4Fry - Apr 22, 2024 - 11:57am
Republican Party
- R_P - Apr 22, 2024 - 9:36am
Malaysia
- dcruzj - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:30am
Canada
- westslope - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:23am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:03am
Broccoli for cats - you gotta see this!
- Bill_J - Apr 21, 2024 - 6:16pm
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 21, 2024 - 3:06pm
Main Mix Playlist
- thisbody - Apr 21, 2024 - 12:04pm
George Orwell
- oldviolin - Apr 21, 2024 - 11:36am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 20, 2024 - 7:44pm
What Did You See Today?
- Welly - Apr 20, 2024 - 4:50pm
Radio Paradise on multiple Echo speakers via an Alexa Rou...
- victory806 - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:11pm
Libertarian Party
- R_P - Apr 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Remembering the Good Old Days
- kurtster - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:37am
Words I didn't know...yrs ago
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:06pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:59pm
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:51pm
MILESTONES: Famous People, Dead Today, Born Today, Etc.
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:44pm
2024 Elections!
- steeler - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:49pm
how do you feel right now?
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:02am
When I need a Laugh I ...
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:43am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 116, 117, 118 ... 125, 126, 127 Next |
Coaxial
Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am |
|
Beaker wrote:It amuses me that I irritate you so — and you never fail to show it at every possible opportunity. I'm the only one T.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am |
|
Coaxial wrote:
If it doesn't will you STFU?
Doubtful.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am |
|
Monkeysdad wrote: That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations. I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.
A couple of points. Per capita efficiency of an airliner doesn't mean anything about it's overall impact. It's the full system we have created and it's impact on the environment that we need to look at. Quasi-substantiated? Science is never absolute. If it is, it is not science. A significant majority of legitimate peer reviewed science (the method we use to give merit to such things) says we are having an impact. It will always be open to challenge, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point that we should operate from. We elect leaders w/ less than a 1% majority, and we rally behind them as a country (or at least we agree not to riot over the inauguration). We should be able to rally around a 75%+ majority of scientific opinion. Knee-jerk? Nothing of this scale will ever be knee-jerk. It may be wrong, but it's hardly knee-jerk. That is just a label you are applying because you disagree with it. Legacy. I have no children. But I do care what this place will look like in 100+ years. Even if the majority opinion is wrong on the cause, don't you think it's wise to address the problem? Or should we just wait and hope that some one will start to proclaim another ice age to worry about? I'd be happy if we could just stop peeing upstream on the river.
|
|
Coaxial
Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am |
|
Beaker wrote:. I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario. Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
If it doesn't will you STFU?
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am |
|
Monkeysdad wrote: That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations. I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.
cooling or warming regardless...they were saying back in '73 that the burning of fossil fuels was a bad idea for a clean/healthy planet. and re., " 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies" - that some great advancement.
|
|
samiyam
Location: Moving North
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am |
|
Beaker wrote:Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision: - Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism. All populist topics go through a "fad" phase. This topic just happens to have reached that phase.
- Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change. Somebody's got to be the scrivener. If not them, then who?
- Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest. Unless they're fools.
- Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'. Sure... your point being?
- Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change. OK, yeah... here's an interesting point.
- Scientists are people just like you and me. They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive. I'm still dreaming about that condo on St. Lucia, yeah, so what?
- The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions. Unfair, but true.
- This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed. Let me teach you a new trade, son.
- This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence. Scientist are capable of cheating? No! Say It's Not So!
I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario. Early evidence appears to be pointing that way. I predict that larger and larger storms will mess with your health and electrical connections.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:01am |
|
Beaker wrote:Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision: - Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism.
- Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change.
- Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest.
- Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'.
- Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change.
- Scientists are people just like you and me. They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive.
- The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions.
- This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed.
- This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence.
I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario. Early evidence appears to be pointing that way. Same as it ever was. Which tempts people to do silly things like whatever's most convenient (ignore all science, keep on keepin' on) and hope they're going to be okay. Or pray they're going to be okay.
|
|
MrsHobieJoe
Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:01am |
|
Monkeysdad wrote: That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling"
Just picking up on this point when I was studying for my geography degree in the late 1980s there were papers out there that had identified the problem of sea level rise so there is at least twenty years provenance for development of the science.
|
|
Painted_Turtle
Location: Land of Laughing Waters Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:58am |
|
edieraye wrote:
Does it matter if there is a problem or not? Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV. God created the Earth. He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it. It is called stewardship. You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:
We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter. That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing. We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not. We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.
Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions. There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.
There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth. What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?
I agree that we need to become better stewards of our earth. Polluting the oceans, rivers & land hasn't been working out very well for us or all of earth's animals. Excellent point.
I know that some Christians have been actively working on behalf of a more sustainable environment. Its a wonderful example of diverse idealogical groups joining hands for the common good of all.
|
|
Monkeysdad
Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:56am |
|
steeler wrote:
I surely do not know.
My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one. There are those denying that there is a problem. So, we are stuck on that. Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?
That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem.
Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms. However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?
What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?
That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations. I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:50am |
|
islander wrote:I hope my mountain/island has a cave.... just in case. Can I visit with my friend Wilson?
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:48am |
|
edieraye wrote:
Does it matter if there is a problem or not? Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV. God created the Earth. He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it. It is called stewardship. You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:
We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter. That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing. We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not. We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.
Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.
If only...
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:47am |
|
steeler wrote: I say, even if human consumption has not knocked the whole natural order of things out of whack, we still have to know that something is happening that can be and likely will be threatening to human and animal life. Yesterday I cited the Ice Age as an example of something that occurred and wiped out species. The earth survived, sure, but a lot of species did not. That, alone, seems to me to provide ample reason for concern. So, why we should be looking for answers, we're bogged down on whether there, in fact, is a problem. Wonder if the dinosaurs had the same conversations?
I hope my mountain/island has a cave.... just in case.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:47am |
|
edieraye wrote:
Does it matter if there is a problem or not? Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV. God created the Earth. He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it. It is called stewardship. You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:
We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter. That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing. We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not. We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.
Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.
I suspect that the conceptual problem would be the same. Those saying there is no problem could also state that as, We are being good stewards; nothing needs to be changed. Using your parlance to frame the issue: Are we being good stewards of the earth and its environment? If not, what do we need to do differently? Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives. We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:41am |
|
islander wrote: There are some who still claim the earth is flat. Do we wait for them to come around, or do we build ships and sail for new lands? At what point do we stop the study? How much evidence is enough? We could literally study this one to death, but I doubt that's a good approach.
Agreed.
|
|
edieraye
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:40am |
|
steeler wrote:What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution? Does it matter if there is a problem or not? Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV. God created the Earth. He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it. It is called stewardship. You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position: We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter. That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing. We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not. We are to leave the world a better place than we found it. Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.
|
|
Painted_Turtle
Location: Land of Laughing Waters Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:40am |
|
oldviolin wrote:Oh, what the heck... Too good OV! That should be one of the prizes for the Winner of the Fossil of the Day Award!
12/07/09 opening day of the talks THIRD PLACE: CANADA "Canada earns its first Fossil of the COP for environment minister Jim Prentice's proclaiming that his nation "won't be swayed" by Copenhagen "hype"...
And yet, if there's a country on the face of this planet that so desperately needs to be swayed, it is Canada.
Since announcing its plan in 2006 for reducing emissions by 3% below 1990 levels, the Harper government has consistently refused to adopt any actual regulatory framework to start reducing emissions—from, for example, the rapidly growing tar sands sector.
Prentice said the target wouldn't change.
So not only does Canada have perhaps the worst record of all industrialised countries, they're now vowing to stick to it.
The world is gathering in Copenhagen to negotiate; Canada says its plan is to not negotiate. Adding insult to injury, South Africa now has a more ambitious target than Alberta, one of the richest places on earth... and home of some of the world's highest per capita emissions." Maybe some RPeeps are upset that they might loose some of their beloved Oil Sand Tars Dollars, so it becomes easier to simply deny that the climate is warming or that sea levels are rising. Makes me wonder if its not politics, but simply allegiance to Corporate money earnings.
...don't get me wrong, not all corporations or businesses are against environmentally cleaner policy. Many are concerned about it and are looking for ways to run their businesses in an environmentally sustainable manner that won't destroy life on the planet as we know it. Hopefully those are the ones that will survive.
1st Place for the Fossil Award goees to: 1st: All industrialised countries, that means the USA is in that Award category
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:37am |
|
Beaker wrote:Nice avoidance of my specific charges. Good job. Beaker 101, lather, rinse, repeat. 26 posts to go. I'm waiting for the graphs and 4 part harmony.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:36am |
|
steeler wrote:However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — can any cost be too great?
Thank you. Exactly.
|
|
MrsHobieJoe
Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:35am |
|
islander wrote: There are some who still claim the earth is flat. Do we wait for them to come around, or do we build ships and sail for new lands? At what point do we stop the study? How much evidence is enough? We could literally study this one to death, but I doubt that's a good approach.
Exactly. Those who are saying "not enough" data are just aiming to keep the status quo. Of course you continue to research and keep an open mind and assess our responses to the data- we may well adjust our approach at some point but we need to get it started. Horrors above- we may even get it wrong but you have to go with the best information at the time to make a decision not wait for hindsight to make things clear.
|
|
|