Climate Change Hoax Ignored by Obama, Gore and the Elite Media

[romanov]

Why should corporations keep the liberty to pollute and yet not be held unaccountable for its consequences? That isn't 'individual liberty' at all.

I dismiss the premise of your question. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. You exhale it all day long. The carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere is not a pollutant. Is it a green house gas? Sure. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the warming come first and then the carbon dioxide or as your side says, the carbon dioxide came first and then the warming?

Well, what about silver mines found under glaciers? And that's not the only thing that's been found under glaciers. They've found forests. They've found entire agricultural centers under glaciers. How did those things get underneath the glaciers unless the glaciers weren't there to begin with? And I know, glaciers move but if they'd plowed over these things, they would have been erased.

The polar icecaps are back up to 1979 levels when they first started measuring the thickness of the polar icecaps. Did you ever wonder how submarines can go underneath the north pole? Did you ever see that picture from the 1950s of the submarine conning tower sticking up out of the ice? the way they did that is the submarine would look for a thin piece of ice and the the submarine would just knock a hole in the ice and pop up. The polar ice cap is a big old gigantic ice cube floating around. It melts. Bits of it break off. It floats around doing what the polar ice cap has been doing for thousands upon thousands of years and it is bigger now than it was in 1979.

Let me tell you a story about what happened in 1912. Just 62 years after what is commonly believed to be the end of the little ice age, this big hunk of ice broke off from a glacier in Greenland. And Greenland was called Greenland because when the vikings got there, it was green not ice covered. And this big, massive chunk of ice floated as far south as the grand banks. And this little ship, I believe it was called Titanic, hit it and sank. This was way before the earth really started heating up. We're just in a warm cycle. That's it. Our contribution, if any, is miniscule compared to the natural forces of nature.

 

[ArteestX]

Then what would be the point of cap and trade. If it does not force people to cut carbon emissions then what does it do? And in order to cut carbon emissions you are asking people to radically change their lives. These people in Copenhagen want us to cut carbon emissions back to 1990 levels.

In 1990 there were about 250 million people in America. Now there are about 375 million. So you want 375 million people to put out the same amount of carbon that 250 million people did? And remember 1990: very few people owned personal computers, the internet was in its infancy, no iPods, very few cell phones... So you are going to have force people to give up a huge amount of what they would consider quality of life.

The government wants to put in a smart grid to monitor your electric use and even have the ability cut off your air conditioner or shut down your TV if you've reached your quota. That's not micromanaging?

Remember there's a difference between conservation and efficiency. Conservation is what we heard during the Carter administration; turn down your heat and wear a sweater, turn off lights when you leave a room, change your behavior to use less energy.

Efficiency, on the other hand, is about doing the same things we do now for less energy; energy efficient bulbs that put out the same light but with much less heat and wasted energy, installing smart grids so that your house can run the dishwasher at night when energy demand is lower and can more efficiently air condition your house, installing motion detectors that only turn on lights when someone's in the room, etc.

Conservation is about giving up aspects of your life, efficiency doesn't ask you to give up your quality of life but instead asks you to do some technology investments that will reduce our energy usage.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My point was that oil will never run out. Exhausting it may be a geological possibility, but it is an economic impossibility.

-sigh- Well, I am unsure if that is wholly correct, but it is basically the point of what I and others have been saying all along.

The fact it is an "economic" problem really is the key to it.

Here's another example from economic geology:

Currently we get aluminum from an aluminum oxide/hydroxide ore called bauxite. If we ran out of bauxite there's plenty of aluminum in granite in various silicate minerals. The big problem is that the oxide/hydroxide phase is really easy to process to get the Al out of. The silicates would be so hard to get the aluminum out of we would simply not use it.

I think this may be what you are meandering about. But in the case of oil the decline may not be particularly gradual such that we will be able to phase in an alternative.

And again, I will point out that petroleum isn't just used in running cars and heating some homes. It underlies just about every aspect of modern society. Find an alternative fuel and you've still not come even close to finding an alternative to the organics that petroleum provides that are non-fuel.

I am prepared to alter my lifestyle if the facts of reality demand it, but not if some politician demands it.

Thankfully in the case of anthropogenic global warming the facts are pretty demanding as we understand them now.

If the scarcity of a commodity causes the price to rise, I may be forced to limit my consumption.

Believe me it won't be as "easy peasy" as you paint it here. If it happens fast enough (and it likely will) it will be more than "I may be force to limit my consumption". It may mean "I don't have a car anymore. I don't have the plastics necessary for medical care. etc."

Thats the way it goes. I choose to make my own decisions not have them imposed upon me by the state.

Sorry but the state already imposes all sorts of decisions on you:

I'd like to drive an Abrams M1 tank into work every day. I can't.

I'd like to own a critical mass of plutonium. I can't.*

I'd like to drive an unlicensed car all over town. I can't.

I'd like to get my heat by burning my neighbors trees in my front yard. I can't.


(*in reality I don't think it would be that much fun to have that much Pu, but you get the point.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

What would the global temperature have been doing over the past century were man not here? Rising, falling or staying the same?

Here's an interesting thing I found recently:

"Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years." (J Imbrie, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (1980/02/29): 943–953 as cited HERE)

Why is warming a bad thing?

Because human society has come up during a type of climatic condition that we have adapted to. We could probably survive warmer weather assuming it didn't go competely bonkers. But it is almost a guarantee that our society wouldn't survive as it currently is. A great portion of the earth's population lives close to shores. Massive resource constraints owing to refugee crises all over the planet (even in the U.S.) will put more than just a "cramp" in our lifestyle. Move the plant hardiness zones far enough north (as they are actually doing today!) and the U.S. loses a lot of its agricultural infrastructure which is one of the keys to our success as a country (ability to feed ourselves).

So, there's that.

Is it not better than cooling? Did man cause the last Ice Age? The Little Ice Age? What did? What impact will melting ice caps have on ocean temperature? Why have global temperatures declined in recent years?

Scientists are aware of earlier cycles of climate and they have some pretty good ideas about the underlying mechanisms and how this time may be different.

What if you are wrong?

Glad you asked!

1. Decreased dependence on petroleum
2. More sustainable development overall
3. Cost just a fraction of being wrong on the other side

It's kind of a gamble. Except the AGW-skeptic crowd is betting against the house. And the house usually wins.

The house has all the climate data indicating that it will win. And then we all lose.






I make decision based upon my interests and those of my family. What you advocate is something quite different, however. You advocate the state imposing its will upon a free people. Ill take my chances with AGW over that any day.[/quote]

 

[thaumaturgy]

The favorite mantra of the left is, "Bush lied. People died" right? Over and over again you hear that repeated. Well, what did Bush do? He only listened to the intel that he agreed with. That agreed with the final outcome that he wanted. And what else did he do? He silenced those in his administration who said that Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction. Technically speaking, he didn't lie. But millions of people will agree that he did.

That's a good point. Thankfully in the present case the mass of data supports the strong likelihood that anthropogenic global warming is a reality.

Personally the stuff about Iraq was murky as all get out. Even Clinton seemed to have felt Hussein was up to something if I recall correctly.

I'm a lefty but I still think Iraq was kind of the "right war" at the totally wrong time. But then I don't know if there ever would have been a "right time". We largely set Hussein up and supported him as we needed him. Then when he got a bit rowdy and threatened our other friends (after he'd served his purpose as a needle to Iran after 1979) we had to turn him into our most dread enemy.

That wasn't just Bush II.

What does Mann and company do? Selectively use the data that they want to use that will support the outcome that they want.

Not necessarily. Certainly not a provable point on an overall, systematic basis. In a sense this is why the climate case is powerful. There are a huge number of independent researchers working on a huge variety of independent measures.

Knock out any one data point and the whole construct does not fall apart. Knock out one researcher (and I'm still unsure that any actual ethical violations have been clearly established), and the whole thing doesn't fall apart.

Imagine I were to find one specialist in gravity research who lied about something. Do I then decree all of gravity to be a fraud?

And in the current case no one has yet proven that lying or falsification of data has actually occured. Yet the AGW-skeptic community has taken it to trial and been judge, jury and executioner.

Why did he go with the crowd? Probably has something to do with the millions of dollars in grant that go to global warming alarmists but not to the people on the other side.

If it's always about money-money-money then surely you will be able to show how the data is incorrect.

It might have something to do with tenure. Ask any professor who advances the theory of intelligent design.

Any good examples? Go ahead and dispense with Expelled. The DETAILS are much more mundane than what was presented in that film.

I have a video of Richard Dawkins speaking of the possibility of intelligent design.

Post it.

He fabricated outcomes.

That's a pretty strong accusation to make against a scientist. It would help if you supported the contention with proof.

He selected one tree out of thousands. His hockey stick has been disproven five or six times.

McIntyre and McKitrick's critique of the hockey stick have largely been denied by most climatologists (LINK)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I dismiss the premise of your question. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. You exhale it all day long. The carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

There is a truism in chemistry: sometimes the dosage makes the poison.

You are right. CO2 itself isn't a "pollutant". But put it in at high levels and it becomes a threat.

Ozone occurs naturally and in parts of the atmosphere actually protects the earth from some harmful radiation! But put enough of it in the wrong part of the atmosphere and you have, yup, pollution.

Is it a green house gas? Sure. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the warming come first and then the carbon dioxide or as your side says, the carbon dioxide came first and then the warming?

This is what is called a feedback mechanism in science. It is possible that increasing temperatures can lower the solubility of a gas in a liquid (like the ocean). This is part of the temperature dependence of the Henry's Law constant (k).

However this is where it is very important to keep close watch on what is being discussed:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even you have acquiesced to that. Run the CO2 concentration up and it will absorb more longwave radiation (in the IR region) causing warming.

Couple that with the fact that a large portion of the recent run up in CO2 concentration can be isotopically linked to human activity (combustion of fossil fuels).

So in the present case it would appear the chicken came first and it's running right at the axe.

Well, what about silver mines found under glaciers?

-huh?- Remember, no one is saying that glaciers don't retreat and advance.

The key here is that the overall trend in global average temperature is upwards as shown by many independent measures.

 

[lordbt]

-sigh- Well, I am unsure if that is wholly correct, but it is basically the point of what I and others have been saying all along.

The fact it is an "economic" problem really is the key to it.

If we are saying the same thing, why do you continue to debate the point?

Believe me it won't be as "easy peasy" as you paint it here. If it happens fast enough (and it likely will) it will be more than "I may be force to limit my consumption". It may mean "I don't have a car anymore. I don't have the plastics necessary for medical care. etc."

Everything is a looming global catastrophe with you leftists. Either mankind is going to burn up in global warming heatwave or we are going to run out of gas overnight and be forced to live like something out of Mad Max. Either way, you want the state to step in to dictate how we are to live our lives and save us from ourselves. Look, if we run out of gas like you claim, guess what? Climate disaster averted.

Sorry but the state already imposes all sorts of decisions on you:

I'd like to drive an Abrams M1 tank into work every day. I can't.

I'd like to own a critical mass of plutonium. I can't.*

I'd like to drive an unlicensed car all over town. I can't.

I'd like to get my heat by burning my neighbors trees in my front yard. I can't.


(*in reality I don't think it would be that much fun to have that much Pu, but you get the point.)

Actually, the list of things the state imposes upon you is far, far greater then the four silly examples you gave. I have no intention of advocating anything that will cause that list to grow. I want to see that list reduced.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's odd to find people so adamant that corporations - who don't give a damn about them - have the right to pollute without end and that any public action taken against this foul system is seen as the ultimate betrayal of some fundamental liberty. Guess what? The air I breathe does not belong to private enterprise. If it wants to pollute that air, or otherwise fill it with greenhouse gases that will heat the atmosphere, it ought to pay - in real terms - for the cost of mitigating the effects of those activities.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If we are saying the same thing, why do you continue to debate the point?

Precisely because I think you take a rather glib approach to a reality of limited resources. You seem to think that something will just fall in place.

Everything is a looming global catastrophe with you leftists. Either mankind is going to burn up in global warming heatwave or we are going to run out of gas overnight

"Leftists"? So you think my position on both natural resources and global climate change topics is because of my political bent and not my doctorate in geology along with years of experience in science?

OOooookkay.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Leftists"? So you think my position on both natural resources and global climate change topics is because of my political bent and not my doctorate in geology along with years of experience in science?

OOooookkay.

It appears that Science, or more-to-the-point, reality has a 'Leftist' bias in the eyes of the Right.

 

[Baggins]

8 days and counting, and I haven't heard from Mann yet. I'm pretty sure I won't. Although it would probably be nice to supeona everything the man has along with his colleagues. At any rate, I digress.

Obviously he isn't going to sue a scientifically illiterate rightwing moon bat like you.

What would be the point?

 

[trunks2k]

And Greenland was called Greenland because when the vikings got there, it was green not ice covered.

No it wasn't.

The Straight Dope: Shouldn't Greenland be known as Iceland and vice versa?

The real story behind the name is given in Erik the Red's Saga, based on oral tradition and written down in the early thirteenth century in Iceland. After the Icelandic landnám was over, Erik the Red and his father Thorvald were forced to leave Norway because one or both of them was involved in killings (details are not given). After Thorvald died, Erik was involved in yet more killings, for which his punishment was three years' vacation--er, I mean banishment from Iceland. (And you thought O. J. got off easy.)

He used the time to explore the rumored lands to the west. When his term of banishment expired, he returned to Icleand to invite his neighbors and friends to settle the new country with him. He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading. Some parts of Greenland, especially the parts the Norse settled, really are green, as these pictures from the tourist board attest (Photos from outdoor life in Greenland). He may have been a killer, but at least he wasn't a real-estate scam-artist. He didn't have that much to gain by lying anyway, since he didn't charge anyone for the land. As in Iceland a century before, the land was free for the taking. Natives had lived in the area in the past, but at the time of Erik's voyage, only the northern part of Greenland was occupied by the Inuit (Eskimos).

 

[lordbt]

"Leftists"? So you think my position on both natural resources and global climate change topics is because of my political bent and not my doctorate in geology along with years of experience in science?

Well, ideology plays a role somehow. I mean, it is no coincidence that people on the left buy into this AGW nonsense and people on the right largely do not. I suppose this could be attributed to that superior intellect that liberals are so confident that they possess. Now, I have no way of knowing to what degree your political ideology influences your interpretation of the data. But what I do know is how your political ideology influences what you see as the solution. Statists tend to embrace statist solutions.

Plus, you didnt address the contradiction in your argument. If your doctorate in geology leads you to believe that oil will run out in the near future leaving us without plastic and with cars that wont run, then the AGW boogeyman will solve itself. No? So why should I surrender my liberty to the state? Since you have not demonstrated that man is behind any change in temperature and that any actions taken by the state will have any measurable impact anyway, I have no plans to do so. Just because people on the left run to the government every time they need their diaper changed doesnt mean I have to go along with it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, ideology plays a role somehow. I mean, it is no coincidence that people on the left buy into this AGW nonsense and people on the right largely do not.

In my case could my doctorate in geology have any bearing on my position? Could my position have been marginally informed by the time I spent as an oceanographic lab tech work on air-sea gas exchange? Or is it because I'm a liberal?

I suppose this could be attributed to that superior intellect that liberals are so confident that they possess.

I don't have a superior intellect, however I did spend 11 years working very hard toward getting 3 university degrees in science.

Now, I have no way of knowing to what degree your political ideology influences your interpretation of the data.

Well, of course I've made a rather clear data-based presentation of my stand that has nothing to do with political ideology so I can see why you'd need to wonder how my politics influence my position.

Plus, you didnt address the contradiction in your argument. If your doctorate in geology leads you to believe that oil will run out in the near future leaving us without plastic and with cars that wont run, then the AGW boogeyman will solve itself. No?

Actually we need to address the reliance on fossil fuels for both these reasons. But of course I didn't say when thought the stuff would run out and if it would be in sufficient time to stop AGW. There's another fine point on the data, CO2 has a long "lifetime" in the atmosphere once it's up there, so that makes the feedback mechanisms and sequestration portions of the cycle much longer delayed. That's one of the reasons CO2 is an important topic to deal with.

But again, I'm veering off into the science and I know this is all about politics.

So why should I surrender my liberty to the state?

You shouldn't. But if you believe in your stance enough, I would think you would take your liberty and learn sufficient of the science to mount a robust defense against this "statist threat".

If indeed it is mostly politically motivated then surely you could "defeat" this overreaching grasping of your money with some solid facts.

That's what the AGW-Skeptic community must do if they really want to have a say. They need to do what science does: fight science with science.

Since you have not demonstrated that man is behind any change in temperature and that any actions

So my repeated points:

1. CO2 is known greenhouse gas

2. A large portion of the current run up of CO2 in the atmosphere can be linked, isotopically, to the combustion of carbon based and fossil-fuels

3. Man is one of the largest comubstors of fossil fuels on the planet

4. Model of hindcast data fit better when anthropogenic factors are considered versus natural factors only

All that isn't in any way compelling?

taken by the state will have any measurable impact anyway, I have no plans to do so. Just because people on the left run to the government every time they need their diaper changed doesnt mean I have to go along with it.

Well, the reason the "state" gets involved in the present case is because it has to be a very large-scale response.

I don't relish the idea of more laws, but I also perceive that the threat of doing nothing is much, much worse if the mass of data is correct.

If you want to muster a good reason to get others to fight the "good fight" with you, perhaps you could have a go at the mass of data the climatologists have put together.

Really in a science debate you should bring some science. If the science causes politicians to think about doing things you disagree with, then maybe you should work on the science front.

 

[lordbt]

You shouldn't. But if you believe in your stance enough, I would think you would take your liberty and learn sufficient of the science to mount a robust defense against this "statist threat".

You dont defeat a statist threat with science.

If indeed it is mostly politically motivated then surely you could "defeat" this overreaching grasping of your money with some solid facts.

I do. By pointing out that the solutions proposed by people like you are nothing more than overreaching power grabs grasping for money and control. AGW is a means to those ends, nothing more.

That's what the AGW-Skeptic community must do if they really want to have a say. They need to do what science does: fight science with science.

There are those who are doing that. Others take on the philosophy behind it, and the objectives of the proponents.

So my repeated points:

1. CO2 is known greenhouse gas

2. A large portion of the current run up of CO2 in the atmosphere can be linked, isotopically, to the combustion of carbon based and fossil-fuels

3. Man is one of the largest comubstors of fossil fuels on the planet

4. Model of hindcast data fit better when anthropogenic factors are considered versus natural factors only

All that isn't in any way compelling?

It makes a certain degree of sense that the activity of 6 billion humans might impact the climate. But you have no more an idea of what the weather will be like in 50 years than I do. If it warms up a little. Terrific. I hate the cold. I am actually a global warming advocate if there is such a thing.

Well, the reason the "state" gets involved in the present case is because it has to be a very large-scale response.

Of course it does.

I don't relish the idea of more laws,

Of course you dont.

but I also perceive that the threat of doing nothing is much, much worse if the mass of data is correct.

Of course it is.

If you want to muster a good reason to get others to fight the "good fight" with you, perhaps you could have a go at the mass of data the climatologists have put together.

Really in a science debate you should bring some science. If the science causes politicians to think about doing things you disagree with, then maybe you should work on the science front.

We are not debating science. This is a political forum.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Separate the science from the politics. They're two different things.

Climate scientists are utilizing observations and theory to predict a future outcome. There's plenty of room for you to contest the scientific theory but the scientific case is quite robust. It's entirely logical that if you could figure out a way to make the problem go away, there would be no need for a solution. I haven't heard any compelling arguments disputing the scientific case for global warming which Thaumaturgy has done a good job outlining.

The political angle is the second step. This is where we figure out how we're going to address the problem. Scientists can give us a lot of ideas and tell us how things will probably work out based on various decisions, but ultimately it's the political circus that makes this decision. There's a million different ways we can address this problem. Everything from "don't worry about it" to "everyone live in Tiki huts". Everyone from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx could have a different idea of how to address the problem.

If we have compelling evidence that there is a problem (the scientific case), then we need to choose an approach to address that problem.

Trying to work this backwards isn't rational.

 

[USincognito]

Well, ideology plays a role somehow.

Yes. The deniers are almost exclusively politically and economically motivated.

I mean, it is no coincidence that people on the left buy into this AGW nonsense and people on the right largely do not.

You mean leftists like Rick Warren?

I suppose this could be attributed to that superior intellect that liberals are so confident that they possess.

The answer can be found in the fact that warmers of any poltical stripe tend to discuss higher average temps, loss of glaciation, coral blearching and other science based arguments while deniers tand to scream about Al Gore's hypocracy and think climate change isn't happening because it snows in Montana in December.

 

[rambot]

Well, ideology plays a role somehow. I mean, it is no coincidence that people on the left buy into this AGW nonsense and people on the right largely do not. I suppose this could be attributed to that superior intellect that liberals are so confident that they possess. Now, I have no way of knowing to what degree your political ideology influences your interpretation of the data. But what I do know is how your political ideology influences what you see as the solution. Statists tend to embrace statist solutions.

Plus, you didnt address the contradiction in your argument. If your doctorate in geology leads you to believe that oil will run out in the near future leaving us without plastic and with cars that wont run, then the AGW boogeyman will solve itself. No? So why should I surrender my liberty to the state? Since you have not demonstrated that man is behind any change in temperature and that any actions taken by the state will have any measurable impact anyway, I have no plans to do so. Just because people on the left run to the government every time they need their diaper changed doesnt mean I have to go along with it.

Ideology can, and should play a role in the discussion of the issue. But ideology should not play a role in informing an opinion on the issue. Thaum. has made it pretty clear he is using his experience (be it first hand, or through peer reviewed literature) to inform his opinion; and it's unrealistic to think he wouldn't be ideological in the discussion. If that seems hard to accept, that may be because you do not follow that pattern. You cannot understand the science and scientists have not made that knowledge accessible to you, so you form your opinion with avenues you are familiar with; ideology.

 

[Baggins]

Yes. The deniers are almost exclusively politically and economically motivated.

The answer can be found in the fact that warmers of any poltical stripe tend to discuss higher average temps, loss of glaciation, coral blearching and other science based arguments while deniers tand to scream about Al Gore's hypocracy and think climate change isn't happening because it snows in Montana in December.

This is very true.

It seems to me a political stance is useless and moribund if its only response to the greatest threat currently facing human civilisation is to either deny it is happening or libel the scientists undertaking the science.

As I have said before, nearly all rightwingers with serious political ambitions for power in Europe have grasped this reality and they have formulated plans to deal with climate change that are politically acceptable to them and their supporters.

The right in the US appears to be almost unique in its inability to actually devise policy in this area, this probably in part due to the fact that their leaders appear to be rather stupid and poorly educated, they don't have much in the way of an intelligensia that the right in Europe can still boast of, they are sticking to the tried and failed "free hand" policies which apparently cannot deal with a natural, global threat.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You dont defeat a statist threat with science.

Well, of course not. Because the whole topic has become a "politics only" topic mainly for those who have no real interest in the science.

Science is hard. Political rants are easy.

I do. By pointing out that the solutions proposed by people like you are nothing more than overreaching power grabs grasping for money and control. AGW is a means to those ends, nothing more.

Ahh, but that approach will lose every time if you are unable to address the data.

If you have 10 doctors who, after running a battery of tests on you tell you you have a life-threatening disease that can only be cured if you act immediately, you aren't going to "win" by debating the cost of treatment.

It makes a certain degree of sense that the activity of 6 billion humans might impact the climate. But you have no more an idea of what the weather will be like in 50 years than I do. If it warms up a little. Terrific. I hate the cold. I am actually a global warming advocate if there is such a thing.

That is an alarming oversimplification and "wishful thinking". Hope it works out for you.

We are not debating science. This is a political forum.

Indeed you are correct. I tend to try to interject facts in debates and when politics is the name of the day, often facts go out the window.

In this particular political debate it is science. But science is hard and political rhetoric is easy.

Political rhetoric in the absence of science is even easier! Because then it's just a bunch of hot air.

Saving Hawaii is correct that political approaches come into play when we decide how to act on the best available evidence.