Emma wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:



Oy! Don't you try covering up incompetence with isolence, you hear!

OK - I got it.

I'm with you PN on this -  But I don't think Soren could even start to answer your q re comparative outcomes.!!!
Not within his capabilities.  And probably a few climate scientists might hazard a guess, but  -  that would be alll it was.
We face NEW ground here, as a race.
What went before may be of some use - instructive, - but in no way speaks to what is happening NOW!!!.

Ludicrous to compare a handful of aboriginals  20,000 yrs ago - to NOW, vis a vis impact on the environment.  In fact it backfires on him, because even the relatively small numbers of aboriginal people in Australia, vast as it is, made a recognisable impact on the environment.  

So - Soren can only mouth the usual blah.
It actually makes me feel ashamed to hear some of the shite that appears on Ozpo.   A good example - we Australians seemed absorbed and obsessed with enforcing the white australia policy, even though that was abandoned more than 40 yrs ago. LIVING IN THE PAST!
Hear the Chief Commissioner for Human Rights in the UN last night?  - or was it the night before?.  
Oh time keeps on slippin' - slippin' - slippin' - in to the future.

So Perception s Now -  I think massive measures MUST be undertaken - YESTERDAY.
Start now ?? we may save some or enable enough time to find alternatives.  MAY........ Morons that think our technology will save us, don't understand that it may save some- but it almost CERTAINLY will not be them.!!

I'm one of the 'it's too late , alrready!!'  Brigade. Sorry PN, but without sacrifices we - the developed world, - don't want to take - (thats obvious!!!!   )   -  very LITTLE will change to the better for the overall outlook  -  people can't even agree about the need for a carbon tax!! and that has got to be the EASIEST way to move towards a better future.
.

Soren wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 1:48pm:


I'll answer yours, If you finally answer mine -

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on Soren's assumptions?

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:51am:


The origin of the discussion was -

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term

, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on Soren's assumptions?

As usual, you are confused or mis-directing.

The crucial questions are very straight forward -

1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on YOUR scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

Now that should be understandable, even by Maqqa???

Emma wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 10:56pm:



Great. You know that those monsters and catastrophies are in your head - but you prefer the little frisson of excitement that comes with dark imaginings.


Quote:



That's what Don Quixote said as he lowered his cardboard visor and spurred his trusted Rosinante on a charge against the windmills, shouting about the honour and duty of fighting malvolent giants.



He knew he wasn't crazy but poreferred the hop[eless romance of chivalry to drab reality. I have sympathy for DOn Quixote. But I emphasise again, he knew he was acting crazy.

I'm not inclined to enter into this debate ATM - but I just wanted to say that this is a fantastic work of art: -

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:00pm:

1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!

We, the current batch of humans, would have done whatever we could to prevent a catastrophe and we would have done so on the user pays principle. At least, we would not have completely postponed any costs, exclusively to future generations, so that we could continue to pander to our own immediate whims!

There is no denying that the costs of taking action now, would be significant and when combined with what is already happening relevant to -
1) Demographics - The Baby Boomer Bust.
2) Peak Energy.
3) Massive Global Debt overload.
those costs would most likely make the upcoming Depression, very long & even more painfull.
In relative GDP terms, if all countries chipped in now, then the cost could perhaps be at least 5% of GDP.

However, an overrider is that it must be an all in approach, if some of the larger Economies such as the USA, China, India, Europe and even Australia do not play ball fairly, then whatever is done is likely not to bear fruit and failure will have severe costs!  

b) Incorrect!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

b) Incorrect!

IF action does not start fairly soon on both Climate Change & Peak Energy, then the results would be -
* The entire Global Economy may vanish!
* A catastrophe, in human loss of life, on a Biblical scale!

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year,  as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.    

The likely outcomes of two scenario's is the same, we simply make a bad scenario worse.

If we assume that Climate Change is real, it turns out to be real, we take proper Business Risk mitgation and everyone joins in, then humanity & the Economy, still has hope.

If we assume that Climate Change is NOT real,  but it turns out to be real, we continue with Business as usual and do nothing, then humanity & the Economy, losses all hope and we really are doomed.