Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #255 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:24pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, SH!T HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

What, NO howls of condemnation, from Progs, nor from others purporting to support Business & the Free Enterprise Business Economy?

Is it because, the possible Costs of Mitigation are likely to be too BIG or likely to be NOT BIG ENOUGH?

Or, is it simply that there is no logical reason, Not to?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #256 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:38pm -->>lib voters don't like being told the markets will decide whether climate change is an issue or not!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #257 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:10pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

What little credibility you have is evaporating with every post. the Hockey Stick is well known as junk science and a thoroughly discredited bit of rubbish.

Really! THen you should be able to show us evidence of this

We are waiting

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

There are more proofs around than could fit into a post but I question what the worth wuld be in giving them to you.

Really! THen you should be able to show us this evidence

We are waiting
gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

You would dismiss each and every report for a variety of invalid reasons.

You are frightened aren't.

You know you are talking crap just.

You have nothing.

THat is why you tell lies.

Why did you say glaciers were not receding?

We are still waiting

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

the UK MET on Dec 24 released a report (very quietly) that they expect to see no warming for the next 4-5 years.

show us the quote liar

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

The link has been givein on here previously.

Then you can post it again - liar.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

the hockey stick has been linked to CO2 and the correlation has been shown to be non-existent.

You said the "hockey stick" says that that "increased CO2 will raise temperaters"

Explain that statement please.

Show everybody just how ignorant you are of this subject. Tell us what you think the "hockey stick" actually is.

We are waiting.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137516
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #258 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Show everybody just how ignorant you are of this subject. Tell us what you think the "hockey stick" actually is.

Scientists who took part in the Doran Survey certainly know what it is, because one of them said:

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

But you knew that already, didn't you? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #259 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:22pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, SH!T HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

What, NO howls of condemnation, from Progs, nor from others purporting to support Business & the Free Enterprise Business Economy?

Is it because, the possible Costs of Mitigation are likely to be too BIG or likely to be NOT BIG ENOUGH?

Or, is it simply that there is no logical reason, Not to?

There is only so much you care to read. Im tired and couldnt be bothered right now. Been busy labouring around the property.

If I get a chance ill have a good read, but this is not the only information available, so dont expect it to be the only one that is right.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #260 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:05pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, SH!T HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

What, NO howls of condemnation, from Progs, nor from others purporting to support Business & the Free Enterprise Business Economy?

Is it because, the possible Costs of Mitigation are likely to be too BIG or likely to be NOT BIG ENOUGH?

Or, is it simply that there is no logical reason, Not to?

There is only so much you care to read. Im tired and couldnt be bothered right now. Been busy labouring around the property.

If I get a chance ill have a good read, but this is not the only information available, so dont expect it to be the only one that is right.

I'm sure you're right, BUT the basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

Btw, I note there is a lack of "concerned anti Climate Change" supporters, who are willing to put up their reasoning, why this is different???

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20358 Perth Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #261 - Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!
Back to top	If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #262 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #263 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20358
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #264 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

There is no need to reduce carbon emissions because according to Longy global warming is a myth unlike God!!!

Roll Eyes

Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people.
Doris Egan, House M.D., The Right Stuff, 2007

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #265 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

thats a silly statement. it is not a 'known risk' if it is considered unlikely. And your parallel is even worse in that the hysterics actually want to radically alter and minimise human society - hardly a risk minimisation strategy. ACC has to actually have a credible backing before spending trillions of dollars on it and to date, the hypothesis is looking increasingly unlikely.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #266 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

There is no need to reduce carbon emissions because according to Longy global warming is a myth unlike God!!!

Roll Eyes

Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people.
Doris Egan, House M.D., The Right Stuff, 2007

The UK MET announced dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase. so that makes 20+ years of no warming. you tell ME what that is because it certainly aint global WARMING. Global WARMED yes but not golbal warmING.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20358
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #267 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:34am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

There is no need to reduce carbon emissions because according to Longy global warming is a myth unlike God!!!

Roll Eyes

Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people.
Doris Egan, House M.D., The Right Stuff, 2007

The UK MET announced dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase. so that makes 20+ years of no warming. you tell ME what that is because it certainly aint global WARMING. Global WARMED yes but not golbal warmING.

The debate continues.....

http://news.sp@m/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #268 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:41am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

thats a silly statement.

it is not a 'known risk' if it is considered unlikely.

And your parallel is even worse in that the hysterics actually want to radically alter and minimise human society - hardly a risk minimisation strategy. ACC has to actually have a credible backing before spending trillions of dollars on it and to date, the hypothesis is looking increasingly unlikely.

Obviously, YOU have never had anything to do with the insurance industry OR you would know that THERE ARE "MANY KNOWN RISKS", WHICH ARE CONSIDERED UNLIKELY TO AFFECT CERTAIN BUSINESSES OR GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT THEY DO AND THEY DO IT, ALL TO OFTEN!

Try Earthquakes, which are frequent, BUT not too frequent in Newcastle!

Or, try Cyclones, which are frequent, BUT not too frequent in PERTH!

Do Businesses demand that these risks be excluded from the insurance premiums they pay? Fortunately, good Business owners & sensible insurance people understand that sh!t happens & it doesn't always happen where, when & how is commonly expected, BUT mitigation of those Risks still make good sense!

In terms of spending Trllions, that's already been done on the GFC, for very little, to NO return!

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #269 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:42am

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:34am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

Huh

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

There is no need to reduce carbon emissions because according to Longy global warming is a myth unlike God!!!

Roll Eyes

Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people.
Doris Egan, House M.D., The Right Stuff, 2007

The UK MET announced dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase. so that makes 20+ years of no warming. you tell ME what that is because it certainly aint global WARMING. Global WARMED yes but not golbal warmING.

The debate continues.....

http://news.sp@m/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html

when a supposed scholarly article refers to 'denialists' and 'realists' then his credibility takes a gigantic plunge. the attitude alone indicates that his view is somewhat biased and despite all those lovely little graphs, it remains unequivocably true that warming HAS stopped. the CRU admits it, the UK MET say both that it hasnt stopped and that it has stopped and those pesky climate disasters refuse to eventuate.

Back to top

IP Logged