• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Climate change

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Climate change

    One for DimPrawn - Lawson on climate change:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6927598.ece

    ...
    The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.

    Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.

    Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

    Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.


    ...
    We don't have to save the world. The world is big enough to look after itself. What we have to be concerned about is whether or not the world we live in will be capable of sustaining us in it.
    - Douglas Adams

    #2
    I couldn't have put it better myself. This is exactly my thinking.

    1. There may not be a warming at all.

    In which case, all the trillions wasted on reducing carbon is a travesty, this money could directly benefit humanity.

    2. There may be some warming, but it is mostly natural climate change.

    In which case, all the trillions wasted on reducing carbon is a travesty, this money could directly benefit humanity.

    3. There may be some warming, and it is mostly human activity.

    In which case, all the trillions wasted on reducing carbon is a travesty, this money could directly benefit humanity by adapting to a warmer planet. Look at the warming as an opportunity.


    And option 3 is looking more and more unlikely, especially given the lack of warming and the collusion of scientists to fake the data.

    Comment


      #3
      I wonder if there are any modellers or statistics experts on the forum who would care to comment. It would be an added bonus if they have read any la-di-da, look-at-me-I-am-brainier-than-you poncy books



      (\__/)
      (>'.'<)
      ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

      Comment


        #4
        It will be interesting to see the 'scientists' weasel their way out of this one.

        I'm keen to know what the next 'big threat' will be.

        My monies on nasty aliens from outer space!

        Little green tax?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
          I wonder if there are any modellers or statistics experts on the forum who would care to comment. It would be an added bonus if they have read any la-di-da, look-at-me-I-am-brainier-than-you poncy books
          As long as you're referring to Sas then I think your sarcasim mojo is running at full force
          Coffee's for closers

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
            As long as you're referring to Sas then I think your sarcasim mojo is running at full force
            busted
            (\__/)
            (>'.'<)
            ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
              As long as you're referring to Sas then I think your sarcasim mojo is running at full force
              Perhaps he could, ahem, "shed" some light into the subject.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
                Perhaps he could, ahem, "shed" some light into the subject.

                he might be busy ..er.. 'cleaning his pipe'


                (\__/)
                (>'.'<)
                ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by PorkPie View Post
                  One for DimPrawn - Lawson on climate change:

                  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6927598.ece
                  So we have the overwhelming majority of respectable scientific opinion aroud the world, versus a gross decrepit failed Tory chancellor. Hmm, let me think.

                  Funny how the climate change deniers are always people who just don't want to be subject to the laws of nature, not if it might affect their pockets?

                  Climate change denial is a bit like evolution denial - plenty of idiots do it, but ye cannae change the laws of nature.

                  Let the "make science up as we go along" mob try gravity denial for a change. Walk off a cliff..... it's "only a theory".
                  Last edited by Tarquin Farquhar; 23 November 2009, 15:39.
                  Step outside posh boy

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Tarquin Farquhar View Post
                    So we have the overwhelming majority of respectable scientific opinion aroud the world, versus a gross decrepit failed Tory chancellor. Hmm, let me think.

                    Funny how the climate change deniers are always people who just don't want to be subject to the laws of nature, not if it might affect their pockets?

                    Climate change denial is a bit like evolution denial - plenty of idiots do it, but ye cannae change the aws of nature.

                    Let the "make science up as we go along" mob try gravity denial for a change. Walk off a cliff..... it's "only a theory".
                    I don't believe in gravity. It's just leftie glue to make my money stay in my pocket.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X