Climate Change - Its not dead yet

[ptc]

it must be her hair.

[astrid]

absolutly we do
in times of crisis like ww2 and other catastrophes, civilised nations adjust their cultures to accommodate those in need and share what they have.
If this means adjusting our culture to make room, so be it.
this is what makes us human
astrid

[ernknot]

This should be in the drivel forum

[dazzler]

This should be in the drivel forum

Interesting, considering Tas doesnt have enough water to runs all its hydro and needs to import power

nb: I aint no expert, but there was an "expert" on the ABC saying this last night

[Koala-Man]

This is the way a lot decisions are made, like insuring your house.

You don't think it will burn down but there's a low probability that it might. Insuring it costs money, but only a fraction of the cost of a new house.

4 possibilities.

Pay for insurance premium, house burns down. Get payout.
Pay for insurance premium, house doesn't burn down. Lose premium.
Don't pay insurance premium. House doesn't burn down. Save premium.
Don't pay insurance premium. House burns down. Save premium, lose house.

So insuring your house is obviously a good idea even though it's very unlikely to burn down.

The difference with global warming is that the low-probability case is that it won't happen (although some people obviously won't believe it until there are camels grazing in Antarctica).

[ernknot]

Interesting, considering Tas doesnt have enough water to runs all its hydro and needs to import power

nb: I aint no expert, but there was an "expert" on the ABC saying this last night

dazzler,
There is plenty of water. Hydro just built the dams in the wrong place. Importing power is a rort. Everyone is cutting back on power usage and Hydro has cashflow problems, so, we import power and up go the charges. The good old ABC ( All Bs Comments), they have their own agenda. People have to lighten up, listening and reading comments/ articles about the global warming issue scares the pants off a lot of people and in turn generates a lot of hysteria. We all know that there is changed weather pattern at this time but it is not the end of humanity. Even the doomsdayers are still running around in cars to get to their meetings etc. and using all of the prcessed goodies available to us. I personally would take advice from a body of scientists who had no conection with politicians, scare mongerers, greenies or glory seeking journalists/ commentators. Is there such a body?
In the meantime, keep making sawdust.

[woodbe]

I can believe that the dams are in the wrong places, but we forget that the Hydro was a runaway bureaucratic dam-building monster. They would have eventually had dams in all the right places as well as all the wrong places except that they got stopped before they finished.

Interesting that the dam-supporting doom and gloom merchants of the time used very similar arguments regarding the future of Tasmania as those now supporting the old growth logging and the pulp mill. Now there are some real scare mongers for you.

woodbe.

[ernknot]

yep, if the Greens get the balance of power we are all stuffed. No firewood, no hunting and no fishing. They will want us to sit around and smoke dope and look at gum trees, oh and occasionally protest when an old tree falls over.

[dazzler]

Fair enough if the dams are in the wrong spot.

But

The blokes argument is hard to beat re warming.

[boban]

Column A is wrong in that the conclusions drawn cannot be different. It does not matter whether global warming is true or false.

If you spend the money and it is false, he concludes that we will have a global depression. OK that's a reasonable conclusion.

If you spend the money and it is true, he concludes that everything is rosy. How on earth can that be right if the same amount of money is spent. Sure it was well spent, but still spent. You must logically still have a global depression, but you have saved the planet so to speak.

So if we act in accordance with column A, we will have a global depression and save the planet whether it is true or false. It's the safe approach as far as the environment is concerned. With column B you are gambling.

So he asks for a hole in his argument, I think I found one.