nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Climategate?

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

climategate

carbon tax

Quick Links

Comments

More than 100 000 people are hospitalized in the USA each year, and around 40 000 die, from the common cold or 'flu.

A "few hundred" are said to die from hyperthermia. It is so much rarer than those who die from winter illnessess and cold, that its hard to find accurate stats.

The cold is a much worse threat to human life than heat, if we are talking a few degrees either way.

The climate has always changed and has never been static. Maybe it is man made (that's far from proven) and the trillions of dollars that the climate scientists say needs to be spent to try to avert (its not even certain their suggested measures will have any effect either way) might be better spent saving human lives through other means( for example a malaria eradication programme. Malaria kills nearly 1 million ( yes one million) people annually (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/index.html) according to the WHO.

The problem I see with the trillions which we are being asked to spend on "climate change" is that it doesn't guarantee we can save even one life today, and it's not even promising to save any lives in the future. If it does ( which is highly unlikely) manage to alter the future temperatures and keep the temperature a few degrees cooler, that is more likely to result in more deaths as cold is shown to be more detrimental to human life than warm.

If we spend even a fraction of this money on a malaria programme, we could save 10 000 000 human lives over the next 10 years.

coletti wrote: »

The cold is a much worse threat to human life than heat, if we are talking a few degrees either way.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that - approximately 30,000 Europeans died as a result of the 2003 heat wave, for example.

coletti wrote: »

If it does ( which is highly unlikely) manage to alter the future temperatures and keep the temperature a few degrees cooler, that is more likely to result in more deaths as cold is shown to be more detrimental to human life than warm.

So preventing climate change will result in increased mortality rates? Here's a question: what effect will an increase in global temperature have on the occurrence of malaria?

coletti wrote: »

If we spend even a fraction of this money on a malaria programme, we could save 10 000 000 human lives over the next 10 years.

We can't do both? Are climate scientists demanding that money be diverted away from the treatment of diseases such as malaria?

Oh and I can't help but notice that you've avoided bonkey's question here.

coletti wrote: »

The problem I see with the trillions which we are being asked to spend on "climate change" is that it doesn't guarantee we can save even one life today, and it's not even promising to save any lives in the future. If it does ( which is highly unlikely) manage to alter the future temperatures and keep the temperature a few degrees cooler, that is more likely to result in more deaths as cold is shown to be more detrimental to human life than warm.

If we spend even a fraction of this money on a malaria programme, we could save 10 000 000 human lives over the next 10 years.

First off, no-one is saying that the main danger of Climate Change to us humans is the change in temperature of a few degrees, and our ability as mammals to handle a change in the ambient temperature around us. That would be as harmless to us as the change in temperature that we experience day to day.

It's disingenuous of you - frankly I don't believe that you could be unaware of the predicted implications if you have read all that you claim to have read. You must be aware of the implications on weather, sea level, desertification, wildlife. Something doesn't add up.

Either you have read all those documents from the IPCC, and have questions about them, and are a truth-seeker; in which case a neutral observer might expect you to have been swayed by some of the evidence put forth in this thread.

Or you are going though a list from a oil-funded climate-skeptic website of potential attack points on climate science, attempting to find a route down which you can make a single point stick.

So far, you've been unsuccessful in doing anything but dragging this discussion even further off-topic (originally it was about the hacked emails).

So, are you a truth-seeker or an attack dog?

If you're a truth-seeker, what say you to bonkey's question linked above?

edanto wrote: »

First off, no-one is saying that the main danger of Climate Change to us humans is the change in temperature of a few degrees, and our ability as mammals to handle a change in the ambient temperature around us. That would be as harmless to us as the change in temperature that we experience day to day.

It's disingenuous of you - frankly I don't believe that you could be unaware of the predicted implications if you have read all that you claim to have read. You must be aware of the implications on weather, sea level, desertification, wildlife. Something doesn't add up.

Either you have read all those documents from the IPCC, and have questions about them, and are a truth-seeker; in which case a neutral observer might expect you to have been swayed by some of the evidence put forth in this thread.

Or you are going though a list from a oil-funded climate-skeptic website of potential attack points on climate science, attempting to find a route down which you can make a single point stick.

So far, you've been unsuccessful in doing anything but dragging this discussion even further off-topic (originally it was about the hacked emails).

So, are you a truth-seeker or an attack dog?

If you're a truth-seeker, what say you to bonkey's question linked above?

If I am a truth seeker? Are you? I'd assumed most of us are truth seekers, but the problem is there are so many versions of the truth, not only one version.

For example, you seem to imply that there is, in your view, only one version of the truth, and anyone who doesn't believe it or accept it is an "attack dog" .

The problem with the truth here is that it not just that there are different versions of it, but the truth you are asking me to believe in a truth in predictions of what will happen at some considerable time in the future. That's less of a truth, and more a prediction.

I've read many things, and when the IPCC makes claims which are not believable, or subsequently found out to be untrue or exaggerated, then it should raise the eyebrows of anyone who is interested in their truth.

Certainly, I do find it alarming that anyone who raises questions is attacked and called an "attack dog" or a "denier" or worse. I prefer to engage with an argument rather than speculate about the person making it.

Questions should be interesting and thought provoking, and not viewed as a sort of modern day heresy by those who think to raise concerns about claims, which subsequently prove to be false or exaggerated, should be brushed aside.

We can accept that global warming is happening, but I am sceptical about the response, or even the causes.

Is climate really predictable 50 years in advance?

I know that the billions being spent on climate change may have an effect, and it may have no effect. In fact, neither of us knows the answer to that as it’s all based on predictions which may, or more likely may not, be right.

I also know that if we were to spend a fraction of that money on disease and poverty, especially in the developing world, we could save millions (yes millions) of lives per year.

Which is more urgent? Which is more important? To save millions of lives per annum or to speculate what the climate might be like in 50 years or so time, and then to spend huge amounts of cash when we are not sure it’s going to do any good?

Hmm. That’s a difficult one alright.

Bonkeys question is the following

bonkey wrote: »

Not too many posts ago, you claimed that you "conclude from the evidence that the IPCC is not reliable and that its reputation as a scientific body basing its conclusions on evidence is damaged by this example".

You now completely agree that the science isn't based on this example.

Should we then take it that this means you no longer believe that this example tarnishes the reputation of the IPCC - that you now believe your earlier conclusions were wrong?

If not, then perhaps you could explain how this example tarnishes something you accept it has nothing to do with.

Its actually not a real question as he claims I accept it has “nothing to do with it” and, apparently, “You now completely agree that the science isn't based on this example. I’m wasn’t sure, and still amo not sure, what he means by either of those statements which don’t, in any case, appear to make much sense except that he appears to be drawing incorrect conclusions about what I might, or might not, think.
Certinly I agree the science wasn’t base on an example, and its more usual for an example to be based on science. Only in the examples given earlier, the examples weren’t actually based on science, which was my point.

coletti wrote: »

Its actually not a real question as he claims I accept it has “nothing to do with it” and, apparently, “You now completely agree that the science isn't based on this example. I’m wasn’t sure, and still amo not sure, what he means by either of those statements which don’t, in any case, appear to make much sense except that he appears to be drawing incorrect conclusions about what I might, or might not, think.

It most certainly is a real question.

You started by saying the evidence undermined the reputation of a scientific body basing its conclusions on evidence.
You were asked for an example which you provided.
You went on to agree that the example in question wasn't used as evidence on which conclusions were based.

I cannot reconcile these statements.

Certinly I agree the science wasn’t base on an example, and its more usual for an example to be based on science. Only in the examples given earlier, the examples weren’t actually based on science, which was my point.

You claimed that the IPCC's "reputation as a scientific body basing its conclusions on evidence is damaged by this example".

Your words - not mine.

I want to know if you still believe that. If so, I'd like to know how you feel its true.

What did the IPCC do that you feel has damaged its reputation as a scientific body?
How is this an example which undermines the basis on which the IPCC reaches conclusions from evidence as a scientific body?

You can argue that the non-scientific content doesn't meet the standard demanded of science....but they stated up front that it wasn't held to that standard, so I don't see how that's a problem.

coletti wrote: »

We can accept that global warming is happening, but I am sceptical about the response, or even the causes.

Is climate really predictable 50 years in advance?

I know that the billions being spent on climate change may have an effect, and it may have no effect. In fact, neither of us knows the answer to that as it’s all based on predictions which may, or more likely may not, be right.

I also know that if we were to spend a fraction of that money on disease and poverty, especially in the developing world, we could save millions (yes millions) of lives per year.

Which is more urgent? Which is more important? To save millions of lives per annum or to speculate what the climate might be like in 50 years or so time, and then to spend huge amounts of cash when we are not sure it’s going to do any good?

Are there billions being spent on Climate Change right now? What about the costs of doing nothing?
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/rp/climate-costsofinaction.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/annual-cost-of-climate-change-will-be-163190bn-1778391.html

It will cost us £190bn to adapt to the changes, if we just sit back and do nothing.

Disease and poverty are strawmen in this debate. I care just as much as you about disease and poverty, but I see climate change exacerbating those problems in the developing world, making water and food even scarcer.

If you can find a way to convince people in this part of the world to do more about economic injustice than they are doing, then I'll come to that meeting. Of course curing malaria would be great, but for me the biggest reason that a billion people have hunger pains right now is economic apartheid, and that is very certainly off topic in this thread. But like I said, if you want to work on that, I work on it with you.

We are just at odds on the climate change science. I believe the vast majority of the scientists, and the IPCC conclusions that the changes are anthropogenic and best avoided. You seem to lean towards the climate sceptic camp (and the irony there is that 15 years ago, the people shouting 'watch out for the global warming!' were the fringe and now they are mainstream), for your own reasons.

I've read many exaggerated claims from climate sceptics, and many of them are funded by oil money. There is a lot more profit in oil than in trying to fund some climate research, and for me, that's why those zany sceptics are so loud and well funded.

bonkey wrote: »

You claimed that the IPCC's "reputation as a scientific body basing its conclusions on evidence is damaged by this example".

Your words - not mine.

I want to know if you still believe that. If so, I'd like to know how you feel its true.

.

Really, I am not going to get bogged down in the mire of semantics, although understand its important to be clear.

To me its self evident that the IPCC issued statements as facts which, quite evidently, were not backed up by any credible scientific evidence.

Consequently, I judge that that calls into question the reputation of the IPCC.

edanto wrote: »

Are there billions being spent on Climate Change right now? What about the costs of doing nothing?
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/rp/climate-costsofinaction.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/annual-cost-of-climate-change-will-be-163190bn-1778391.html

It will cost us £190bn to adapt to the changes, if we just sit back and do nothing.

That’s quite a claim. It looks like speculation and guesswork to claim that it will cost us £190bn as the cost if we do “nothing”.

The whole claims of the climate change lobby are based on guesswork and predictions. We can’t accurately predict the weather next Thursday week, but we are being asked to believe that some scientists, who have come out with things like the hockey stick graph, and who seem to want to keep as mush of their work as possible secret, are able to predict what the climate will be like in 50 years.

Anyone who questions that is accused, (just as you have done in your post) of being in the pay of the nasty oil companies and so on.

edanto wrote: »

Disease and poverty are strawmen in this debate. I care just as much as you about disease and poverty, but I see climate change exacerbating those problems in the developing world, making water and food even scarcer.

The malaria eradication programme was an example of how we could do something wonderful for comparatively little money. To me saving over a million deaths a year is more tangible, and will do a lot more good for more people, than spending billions upon trillions of dollars in the uncertain hope we can solve a problem which some scientists claim is going to happen in 50 years time or so, based on predictions, guesswork and science, science such as the hockey stick graph, which is questionable.

I could be wrong. Or you could be wrong. We don’t know as its mainly predictions and guess work and science which seems to be shaky as in the examples of the hockey stick graph, or the IPCC’s claims discussed above, as examples.

edanto wrote: »

We are just at odds on the climate change science. I believe the vast majority of the scientists, and the IPCC conclusions that the changes are anthropogenic and best avoided.

That’s the point. You want to believe that the predictions and guess work are going to prove accurate. I am not a believer or a non believer, but will make up my mind based on evidence. For me it’s not a matter of belief, but a matter of evidence and common sense.

If the goal is to save human life, then I know that to save a minimum of 50 million people over the next 50 years is more likely to be of more benefit to mankind than pumping trillions of dollars, in the meantime, to try to avoid a problem which we are guessing might happen and which we are not sure we can, in any event, have any or much control over.

coletti wrote: »

Really, I am not going to get bogged down in the mire of semantics, although understand its important to be clear.

To you its semantics. To me, its a question of accuracy. You claimed this was evidence which tarnished their reputation as a scientific body basing its conclusions on evidence.

Your defence now seems to be that its tarnished their reputation, somehow, even if its not on their reputation as a scientific body, nor about how they base their conslusions on evidence.

To be honest, it seems like a grudging way of saying you accept that it doesn't support what you originally claimed...but wish to present a different complaint that it does support.

Either which way...lets look at those new claims...

To me its self evident that the IPCC issued statements as facts which, quite evidently, were not backed up by any credible scientific evidence.

To me, its clear that the IPCC set out in advance, the standards to which they held their material. Material used for scientific purposes was held to the rigorous levels of scientific research. Material not used for scientific purposes was held to a lower standard. This was stated up-front. It wasn't hidden from anyone actually reading the report...although it may not have been made clear to people presented with someone else's choice extracts.

If you wish to see an acknowledgement of research being grey as a claim that it is fact, thats entirely your perogative. You're wrong...but its your perogative.

I'll readily accept that selected contents of the report have been portrayed as others as claims of fact, but both the wording in the report (which I've already supplied), nor the statemets regardiing the quality of the sources (whch I've already supplied) make it clear that it wasn't suggested as fact.

Again...I'll accept that this may seem like pedantry to you. You're perfectly entitled to see someone saying "this isn't the most rigorously checked source, but it suggests that the following is likely" to mean "the following si unquestionably going to happen". Because lets be honest here...thats really the level of distinction that you're trying to cast as "pedantry".

Consequently, I judge that that calls into question the reputation of the IPCC.

Again...that's your perogative.

They stated up front that they did not hold this research to the rigorous levels demanded for science...because they were not using it for scientific purposes. An error was found. They acknowledged the error and said that they need to improve their standards, even when not dealing with science.

If you feel that calls their reputation on matters scientific into question...then I'd continue to take issue with that, as we're still dealing with an example entirely outside the scientific field, held to a standard they admitted was lower then the standard they held the scientific work to.

If anything, this shows that their reputation as a scientific body is untarnished, and it is their quality in fields outside the purely scientific which may require improvement.

The problem with denialism is that it's a position of inherent dishonesty. It's not true scepticism. Sceptics are generally people who have a greater or equal level of education to the people supporting what they're sceptical of. This does not even begin to be the case here, as an overwhelming number of climatologists(up to 97%) are for the idea of AGW.

This is plain to see when Coletti not only tries to convince us it isn't happening, by pointing out simple things that just about every climatologist would have noticed long before him, but also that more heat isn't necessarily "Bad".

People like him just want to get you to stop caring about climate change. Whether it doesn't exist or we're not causing it or it's not that bad doesn't matter. That's the kind of thing that matters to people who give a crap about facts and logic.

bonkey wrote: »

To you its semantics. To me, its a question of accuracy. You claimed this was evidence which tarnished their reputation as a scientific body basing its conclusions on evidence.

Your defence now seems to be that its tarnished their reputation, somehow, even if its not on their reputation as a scientific body, nor about how they base their conslusions on evidence.

To be honest, it seems like a grudging way of saying you accept that it doesn't support what you originally claimed...but wish to present a different complaint that it does support.

Either which way...lets look at those new claims...

To me, its clear that the IPCC set out in advance, the standards to which they held their material. Material used for scientific purposes was held to the rigorous levels of scientific research. Material not used for scientific purposes was held to a lower standard. This was stated up-front. It wasn't hidden from anyone actually reading the report...although it may not have been made clear to people presented with someone else's choice extracts.

If you wish to see an acknowledgement of research being grey as a claim that it is fact, thats entirely your perogative. You're wrong...but its your perogative.

I'll readily accept that selected contents of the report have been portrayed as others as claims of fact, but both the wording in the report (which I've already supplied), nor the statemets regardiing the quality of the sources (whch I've already supplied) make it clear that it wasn't suggested as fact.

Again...I'll accept that this may seem like pedantry to you. You're perfectly entitled to see someone saying "this isn't the most rigorously checked source, but it suggests that the following is likely" to mean "the following si unquestionably going to happen". Because lets be honest here...thats really the level of distinction that you're trying to cast as "pedantry".

Again...that's your perogative.

They stated up front that they did not hold this research to the rigorous levels demanded for science...because they were not using it for scientific purposes. An error was found. They acknowledged the error and said that they need to improve their standards, even when not dealing with science.

If you feel that calls their reputation on matters scientific into question...then I'd continue to take issue with that, as we're still dealing with an example entirely outside the scientific field, held to a standard they admitted was lower then the standard they held the scientific work to.

If anything, this shows that their reputation as a scientific body is untarnished, and it is their quality in fields outside the purely scientific which may require improvement.

“The author, who was supposed to follow IPCC procedures, which clearly lay down that wherever you use gray literature, you have got to check and cross check the source of the information that’s contained in it. The author concerned, apparently, didn’t do that”

That’s what Dr Pachuari says about the false claims which the IPCC published, and claimed as fact. Presumably no one actually at the IPCC checked, or cross checked the source of the information either, but they still went on to publish it as fact.

(His own institute, TERI, made a grant application based on the same false claims which they claimed as fact but which were, in fact, wrong.)

What I find unusual is that, rather than showing even the smallest bit of concern that the IPCC made a claim, acknowledged in this video by Dr Pachuari http://algorelied.com/?p=3597 , your instinct appears to be to virtually ignore it and rush to defend the IPCC.

My view is that, to make claims which are untrue, as the IPCC did on this occasion and which Dr Pachuari agrees they did, does not enhance their reputation or enhance their credibility.

It seems in many discussions such as these we each take up a position and, whether using clever language or, (as the person below your last post demonstrates, by avoiding any argument completely and resorting to calling me a bunch of names!), and we all want to “win” the argument.

There is no wining this argument, though, as the claims by those who are making the argument are based on guesswork and predictions as to what might happen in the future. That they call their guesswork and claims “computer models” doesn’t make them any less guesswork or predictions, and none of us can know for sure what’s going to happen or if we can alter it significantly.

We’re simply not going to agree as it appears you accept that the computer models are accurate and what they predict is going to happen and that humans have the power to alter it. I’m not so sure. That’s our difference.

coletti wrote: »

That’s what Dr Pachuari says about the false claims which the IPCC published, and claimed as fact.

Perhaps you could point out the text in the relevant report from the IPCC which states that their claim about Himalayan glaciers was, at the time of printing, absolute, unequivocal and indisputable?

coletti wrote: »

Presumably no one actually at the IPCC checked, or cross checked the source of the information either...

I’m sure they did, but you know what, sometimes errors slip through the net. It may shock and horrify you to learn that even peer-reviewed scientific papers often contain errors and typos, hence the need for errata.

coletti wrote: »

His own institute, TERI, made a grant application based on the same false claims...

I very much doubt it, seeing as how the claim was based on ‘grey’ literature. However, if you’ve got the grant application to hand, feel free to produce it.

coletti wrote: »

There is no wining this argument, though, as the claims by those who are making the argument are based on guesswork and predictions as to what might happen in the future. That they call their guesswork and claims “computer models” doesn’t make them any less guesswork or predictions...

What you refer to as ‘guesswork and predictions’ have been used by humans pretty much since the advent of the scientific method to describe the universe around them – seems to work pretty well. Take the plotted trajectory of satellites for example – based on little more than simple equations dating from the 16th and 17th centuries.

Well said.

Lads, this thread is going round in circles for me, I'm gonna unsubscribe. Thanks all.

coletti, good luck on your quest to disprove the dangers of climate change, and rubbishing prediction methods as guesswork when you don't agree with the outcomes. You'll need it.

Just a wee farewell tip, don't buy a house too close to the sea if you plan on handing it down to your kids. If you think that's rubbish, then that's fine, I'm not that bothered trying to convince you.

edanto wrote: »

Well said.
and rubbishing prediction methods as guesswork when you don't agree with the outcomes.

None of us know what the outcomes will be. They are predicting what the climate will be like in 50 and 100 years and beyond, based on guesswork.

We are being asked to believe their guesswork/computer models, and then to spend billions upon trillions of dollars based on their predictions, and many of these are the same people who brought us the hockey stick graph, many of whom are still claiming it is accurate, long after it has been shown to be a distortion of the truth, unreliable and just plain wrong.

coletti wrote: »

None of us know what the outcomes will be. They are predicting what the climate will be like in 50 and 100 years and beyond, based on guesswork.

Guesswork is an inaccurate word to describe computer modelling.

coletti wrote: »

We are being asked to believe their guesswork/computer models, and then to spend billions upon trillions of dollars based on their predictions, and many of these are the same people who brought us the hockey stick graph, many of whom are still claiming it is accurate, long after it has been shown to be a distortion of the truth, unreliable and just plain wrong.

Actually it isn't "trillions" - the Stern report advises spending 1% of global GDP. Given that the global GDP in 2008 about $60tr, 1% of that is 600 billion.

If you have an issue with the "hockey stick graph", please explain it.

taconnol wrote: »

Guesswork is an inaccurate word to describe computer modelling.

Actually it isn't "trillions" - the Stern report advises spending 1% of global GDP. Given that the global GDP in 2008 about $60tr, 1% of that is 600 billion.

If you have an issue with the "hockey stick graph", please explain it.

Guesswork is the most accurate way of explaining it, because that's what it is. Don't be fooled that, somehow, because it comes out of a computer it magically becomes accurate. All the computers do it what they are told to do. For example, they are told to give some factors more weight than other factors, and make hundreds of assumptions, and then we're supposed to believe that they can accurately predict what the climate will be like tens and hundreds of years into the future.

The guesses might be shown in the future to have been good guesses. Or not. We won't know until we get to the future. You seem to be saying you believe that they will be proved accurate. I'm saying I am not so sure.

The spending isn't over 1 year, its over many years.

$600 billion a year, over 10 years, is $6 trillion.

$600 billion a year, over 50 years, is $30 trillion.

When you say "actually it isn't trillions" it sure looks like trillions to me. What is your basis for saying that more than $2 trillion or more is not trillions?

There are many others in the scientific community (how I hate that word community) who have demonstrated the problems with the hockey stick graph, that I am surprised you appear to not have been aware of the problems with it.

coletti wrote: »

Guesswork is the most accurate way of explaining it, because that's what it is. Don't be fooled that, somehow, because it comes out of a computer it magically becomes accurate. All the computers do it what they are told to do. For example, they are told to give some factors more weight than other factors, and make hundreds of assumptions, and then we're supposed to believe that they can accurately predict what the climate will be like tens and hundreds of years into the future.

Congratulations - you've just exposed how little you understand of how computer modelling works.

coletti wrote: »

There are many others in the scientific community (how I hate that word community) who have demonstrated the problems with the hockey stick graph, that I am surprised you appear to not have been aware of the problems with it.

I'm surprised that you never think of linking to any evidence to support your arguments, looking to get away with sentences like "oh, didn't you know that this is the way things are?" These are shockingly poor debating skills.

And the total cost is not trillions when you factor in the benefits. Of course if you chose to do a cost-cost analysis and ignore the benefits, your figures are going to be skewed.

coletti wrote: »

Guesswork is the most accurate way of explaining it, because that's what it is. Don't be fooled that, somehow, because it comes out of a computer it magically becomes accurate.

To return to my earlier example, humans have launched a relatively large number of satellites and probes into space with a remarkably high success rate, considering that the trajectories of these objects are based on "guesswork", as you call it.

taconnol wrote: »

And the total cost is not trillions when you factor in the benefits.

First you claim I am wrong when I say the cost is trillions. Then, when it is demonstrated that the cost is, indeed, trillions as I claimed,, you then introduce a new qualification "when you factor in the benefiits".

It's hard to discuss when your primary aim is to appear to want to wrong foot me, rather than discuss.

coletti wrote: »

First you claim I am wrong when I say the cost is trillions. Then, when it is demonstrated that the cost is, indeed, trillions as I claimed,, you then introduce a new qualification "when you factor in the benefiits".

It's a perfectly valid point, because the Stern Review also concluded that doing nothing (i.e. 'letting the market decide') could result in global GDP decreasing by up to 20%.

djpbarry wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid point, because the Stern Review also concluded that doing nothing (i.e. 'letting the market decide') could result in global GDP decreasing by up to 20%.

Indeed. When the costs of a particular line of action are being lamented, the costs of inaction are rarely discussed.

coletti wrote: »

We are being asked to believe their guesswork/computer models, and then to spend billions upon trillions of dollars based on their predictions,

I wouldn't put too much stock on that "billions upon trillions" figure. Its only guesswork. For all we know, the real cost might be far lower.

bonkey wrote: »

I wouldn't put too much stock on that "billions upon trillions" figure. Its only guesswork. For all we know, the real cost might be far lower.

I agree. But lower than $30 trillion might amount to a lot of money too. I was using the figure given by taconnol.

coletti wrote: »

I agree. But lower than $30 trillion might amount to a lot of money too. I was using the figure given by taconnol.

Whoa - I was referencing Stern's figure and applying it to 2008 world GDP to get an annual figure. You came up with $30 trillion not me!

taconnol wrote: »

Whoa - I was referencing Stern's figure and applying it to 2008 world GDP to get an annual figure. You came up with $30 trillion not me!

If we are going to list all the things we have each come up with here, it is going to be a very tedious future!

First you say that i am wrong, that $600 million a year over 50 years is not $30 trillion.

Then you appear to agree that $600 million times 50 years is $30 trillion.

Now you seem to neither say that its right, or wrong, but just that I was the one who worked it out. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or how you are trying to add to the discussion by pointing out that I worked out that your figure of £600 million per annum, times 50 years, is $30 trillion.

coletti wrote: »

If we are going to list all the things we have each come up with here, it is going to be a very tedious future!

I didn't list everything, I listed what was relevant to clarify your misrepresentation of what I wrote. Stop confusing the issue.

Nowhere did I dispute the basic mathematics of $600 million x 50yrs = $30 trillion. What I did dispute was your willingness to ignore the costs of inaction and then you putting the figure of $30 trillion at my feet. I never said that fighting climate change would cost $30 trillion.

This is exactly how the Daily Mail gets its headlines.

taconnol wrote: »

Nowhere did I dispute the basic mathematics of $600 million x 50yrs = $30 trillion.

I would (given that its wrong).

coletti wrote: »

I agree. But lower than $30 trillion might amount to a lot of money too.

So even if we accept a level of uncertainty and inaccuracy, we can still see that there's an absolute shedload of money to be spent....and that's what you object to.

Its almost as though someone has taken the best information available, built the best model possible, refined it over time, and so on and so forth, and come up with this figure which is, of course, an estimate. In your terminology, its "guesswork"...but its good enough to base your objections on.

So remind me again...what, exactly, is the issue you have with people basing a stance on what you have chosen to term "guesswork"?

bonkey wrote: »

I would (given that its wrong).

Oh lord, I need to pay more attention...:o

Or...y'know...have your important math peer-reviewed

"I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists who say that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system, Well I am one scientist, and there are many, who say that that is simply not true".

Professor John Christie, Lead Author, IPCC