Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #270 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:47am

perceptions_now wrote on 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!

comparing ACC to the insurance industry is an interesting one - if rather silly when you think about it. A risk needs to be credible to be considered. and then it needs to be quantified so that it can be mitigated. ACC is rapidly losing the credibility stakes. and as for quantified, what prediction do you want to use to quantify it? the failed one, the really failed one or the laughably bad failed one? and therein lies the difference. insurance mitigastes KNOW risks with KNOWN outcomes. ACC is both increasinlgy unlikely and its effects utterly unknowable.

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 #271 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:26am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

perceptions_now wrote on 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!

comparing ACC to the insurance industry is an interesting one - if rather silly when you think about it. A risk needs to be credible to be considered. and then it needs to be quantified so that it can be mitigated. ACC is rapidly losing the credibility stakes. and as for quantified, what prediction do you want to use to quantify it? the failed one, the really failed one or the laughably bad failed one? and therein lies the difference.

insurance mitigastes KNOW risks with KNOWN outcomes.

ACC is both increasinlgy unlikely and its effects utterly unknowable.

Do You consider Earthquakes in Newcastle &/or Cyclones in PERTH, credible, usual or likely?
There is already work done on both quantifying & mitigating, BUT as usual, YOU only look at what you want to see.

I think you meant to say, "insurance mitigates KNOWN risks with KNOWN outcomes".

And, to be blunt, you wouldn't know the first thing about -
insurance
mitigation of risks
known risks
known outcomes
unknown risks
unknown outcomes

Or, as Don Rumsfeld put it -
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

And, there is one more just for you, Longy -
There are also knowns & unknowns –

which we don’t want to know

- but which we really do know.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #272 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #273 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #274 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

It isnt like the MET ever get anything right apart from looking out the window and saying "yeh its raining, grab an umbrella" (unless you think odds the same as throwing a dart mean anything), but it is funny to note that they think 20 years of flat temps while co2 is going to double soon.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #275 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:13pm Does progs understand that heat content is absorbed by ice,... before it melts! It's called the process of phase change!! Interesting graphs associated with phase change!!
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 #276 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:41pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

Don't tell lies Gold Medal.

You claimed that the UK Met announced on "dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

SHOW US THIS ANNOUNCEMENT
You appear to be telling lies again. No such announcement exists.

I have shown you what the Met ACTUALLY said. Here is the link to the Met website where you will see their announcement:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

It says very clearly:
it is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest ten years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012.

It DOES NOT say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Please show us the announcement you are referring to - or apologise for telling a lie.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #277 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:44pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

It isnt like the MET ever get anything right apart from looking out the window and saying "yeh its raining, grab an umbrella" (unless you think odds the same as throwing a dart mean anything), but it is funny to note that they think 20 years of flat temps while co2 is going to double soon.

Are you referring to what the MET has actually said? Or one of Gold Medals lies about what the MET has said.

They are 2 different things.

THe MET said:
“It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,
and I have provided teh link above to confirm it.

Gold Medal told a lie and claimed they said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Gold Medal has provided no links to support this. THis is because Gold Medal made it up.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #278 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:40pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

It isnt like the MET ever get anything right apart from looking out the window and saying "yeh its raining, grab an umbrella" (unless you think odds the same as throwing a dart mean anything), but it is funny to note that they think 20 years of flat temps while co2 is going to double soon.

Are you referring to what the MET has actually said? Or one of Gold Medals lies about what the MET has said.

They are 2 different things.

THe MET said:
“It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,
and I have provided teh link above to confirm it.

Gold Medal told a lie and claimed they said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Gold Medal has provided no links to support this. THis is because Gold Medal made it up.

ths link was provided to you and you were too stupid to open it and read it. your lack of intelligence is not my problem.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #279 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

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

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.

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

It isnt like the MET ever get anything right apart from looking out the window and saying "yeh its raining, grab an umbrella" (unless you think odds the same as throwing a dart mean anything), but it is funny to note that they think 20 years of flat temps while co2 is going to double soon.

Are you referring to what the MET has actually said? Or one of Gold Medals lies about what the MET has said.

They are 2 different things.

THe MET said:
“It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,
and I have provided teh link above to confirm it.

Gold Medal told a lie and claimed they said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Gold Medal has provided no links to support this. THis is because Gold Medal made it up.

ths link was provided to you and you were too stupid to open it and read it. your lack of intelligence is not my problem.

No it wasn't

You are telliing a lie.

Show us where the UK MET announced:

that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Show us.

If you showed us before - you can show us agin.

Come on - here is your big chance to prove me wrong and prove you are not telling lies

Show us where the UK MET announced:

that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

I am accusing you of telling a lie.

WHat have you got?

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #280 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:17pm Longy has been reading into material what suits him for ages..If he ever read any of the stuff he links to..ALL THE WAY THROUGH..he would realise hes never had anything worth a rats tossbag
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #281 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:00pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Longy has been reading into material what suits him for ages..If he ever read any of the stuff he links to..ALL THE WAY THROUGH..he would realise hes never had anything worth a rats tossbag

Hey, wait just a minute!

We don't want to go around insulting "rats tossbogs", DO WE?

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 #282 - Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:03pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

perceptions_now wrote on 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!

comparing ACC to the insurance industry is an interesting one - if rather silly when you think about it. A risk needs to be credible to be considered. and then it needs to be quantified so that it can be mitigated. ACC is rapidly losing the credibility stakes. and as for quantified, what prediction do you want to use to quantify it? the failed one, the really failed one or the laughably bad failed one? and therein lies the difference.

insurance mitigastes KNOW risks with KNOWN outcomes.

ACC is both increasinlgy unlikely and its effects utterly unknowable.

Do You consider Earthquakes in Newcastle &/or Cyclones in PERTH, credible, usual or likely?
There is already work done on both quantifying & mitigating, BUT as usual, YOU only look at what you want to see.

I think you meant to say, "insurance mitigates KNOWN risks with KNOWN outcomes".

And, to be blunt, you wouldn't know the first thing about -
insurance
mitigation of risks
known risks
known outcomes
unknown risks
unknown outcomes

Or, as Don Rumsfeld put it -
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

And, there is one more just for you, Longy -
There are also knowns & unknowns –

which we don’t want to know

- but which we really do know.

Cat got your tongue, Longy?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2783 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #283 - Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:27pm rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:53pm: Show us where the UK MET announced: that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase." Cat got your tongue, Longy?
Back to top	IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #284 - Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET. Now being a climate hysteric group you need to read the statistics using 'critical reasoning'. when it says 'lower forecasts' of 0.43 degrees higher it doesn't mean 0.43 higher than now or even 2000 but the AVERAGE of 1971-2000 which funnily enough is 0.40 below today's temperatures. So in short they are predicting over the next 5 years a 'rise in temperature off 0.03 degrees.

0.03 degrees which is about as close to zero as you can get. But the fun comes later on when they tell you that the RANGE of expected temperatures is 0.29-0.54 with the higher probability for the lower figure. so do the math... that means the 90% probability is .11 LOWER than today's temperatures.

MOTR. this is called critical analysis and reasoning.

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures... just according to their WORDS. no wonder they have been subject to parliamentary investigation!

Back to top

IP Logged