http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=206
Conclusion

So, there is perhaps an air of hypocrisy around Ross Garnaut’s position as “Champion of the Green movement”?  His hands are covered in muck, and we’re not talking about him pottering around his cabbage patch on a Sunday here.  The muck that he’s knee deep in is phenomenally toxic and, in classic colonial style, polluting jolly foreigner’s island whilst he’s reaping massive rewards.  He deregulated Papua New Guinea in the 70s and, since then, is now profiteering massively from their gold resources.  He really sets the “Gold” standard when it comes to environmentalism.

Evil, exploitative capitalism I can handle, but lashings of hypocrisy, well, that just gets my goat.

You can win this debate by collectively sending your power bills back unpaid until this farce stops.  Take action, take to the streets, riot, bring down the world dictatorship.

Class War till the end

http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/anarchy_sid_vicious_quote_cat.jpgw=480&h=408

I post this here, because it's relevant!

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.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:34pm:



Actually, you indirectly point to an important aspect of the fossil 'fuel' consumption debate - i.e. that: humanity ought to be conserving its finite oil reserves for far more valuable and productive long-term uses, by future generations, than once-off combustion for temporary energy!

Quote:


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:16pm:


And you completely missed the corelation between historic Co2 levels and historic temperatures, didn't you???

Both these graphs are highly misleading for anything over a few thousand years.   No data is reliable after that.  Thats basic science.

The problem with the misuse of scientific data is the they grab one bit of data from one source, ignore the error component, plonk it into excel and produce whatever they want.

Here they are trying to potray everything as absolutely normal, except they forgot to chop off the last few decades on the co2 graph.

World temperature has been rising. Perhaps they chopped that off the temp graph, or found one of the temp samples that bucked the trend. But across all samples, the world is warming.

Its very mischeivious for sham artists to misuse data like this, and then expect non-scientific review to be anywhere near accurate.  Climate scientists is an amazingly complex field. Anyone who has not worked in the field for a good couple of decades shouldnt be trying to draw their own conclusions.

I dont advice rocket scientists how to build rockets, and neither should you.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:36pm:

Big numbers seem really really big hey. But in the scheme of things, is a drop of water in a 100ltr tank very BIG to you.