Home > Regular Features > Weekend reflections

Weekend reflections

December 19th, 2008

It’s time once again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Ian Gould
    December 23rd, 2008 at 22:42 | #1

    “Al Gore is not a climate scientist”.

    Neither is James Imhofe.

    Has Gore ever claimed he was?

    Or has he been too busy bribing the National Academy of Sciences and the British royal Society to support him?

    I’m also fascinated by your rejection of the science of global warming based on your (absurd) beleifs regarding the likely consequences.

    Presumably as a child you didn’t believe in Measles because you didn’t like needles.

    h

  2. Ubiquity
    December 23rd, 2008 at 23:14 | #2

    Al Gore and AGW, Kleenex and noses. No never claimed to be a scientist. But credibility and trust: Al Gore, AGW and climate scienitist would have a close correlation.

    You’re not fasinated just a little confused. AGW may be real, my question again, is the response proposed by AGW advocates, a measured one or one we will pay dearly for in the future. JQ current blog is relavant on N Taleb. Their are no contingencies and no safety nets. We keep trying to pick the right model, but it will always be flawed in some way. How big the flaw will depend on how big the bubble is (eg.governments subsidises). The bigger the subsidy the bigger the safety net needed to bail us out when it all comes crashing down. Show me a safety net or contingency measured against the great climate model response and I will reconsider my options.

    I will leave ” beliefs” up to Al Gore. I believe nothing without careful thought and analysis.

  3. Smiley
    December 24th, 2008 at 00:57 | #3

    AGW may be real, my question again, is the response proposed by AGW advocates, a measured one or one we will pay dearly for in the future.

    I’m extremely incredulous with the argument that we must keep consuming fossil fuels at unsustainable rate to keep the economy from faltering for two reasons.

    Firstly, we’re going to pay dearly for a business as usual approach with or without AGW. Almost everyone accepts that we won’t be consuming 30 billion barrels of oil a year in 30 years time and it will be a real problem for those of us who are less than 50 years of age. We know how inappropriate the current alternatives are for supplying our energy needs and we know that it will take time to develop the technologies and reduce our demand.

    Secondly we know if we reduce our reliance on mechanisation a lot of the work that needs to be done to keep our society functioning can be carried out manually. A carbon restricted economy will produce a lot more full-time jobs than the current economy does.

    In addition to this only some of the predictions of climate change need to be realised to destine future populations to a loss in the standard of living worse than any loss resulting from cuts in our energy consumption patterns.

    Our fixation with the dig-crap-out-of-the-ground-and-burn-it-economy is almost like the fixation that the Easter Islanders had with building statues to acknowledge their ancestors and appease their bird gods.

  4. Alanna
    December 29th, 2008 at 16:16 | #4

    I would really like to ask the question why we still (STILL) have planning laws that have permitted the construction of a vast number of units in the Sydney Metropolitan region over the past decade – each one so designed to leave not a shred of common property for an external clothesline – each unit mostly subject to body corporate by laws that prevent the display of washing drying on balconies. Our planning laws have automatic inbuilt climate change denialism embedded. Think of all those dryers in a country known for its sunshine desperately turning to get tightly wadded wet sheets dry in twice the time it would take the sun to do it. What madness presided over the the abhorrent state of planning legislation that has allowed this absurdity to occur?

  5. Alanna
    December 29th, 2008 at 21:59 | #5

    Smiley

    The Easter Islanders occasionally haunt me as well. We dont need scientists to tell us what damage production is doing to the environment – most of us have seen our own evidence of various different kinds (for me, no one swims in Lane Cove River anymore – despite two generations of my family swimming there – and the grey cloud over Sydney I could see from a hill in St Ives 35 years ago just got bigger and bigger).There are none so blind as those who choose to deliberately shut their eyes whilst stating that “they cant see” to any who will listen. It would be nice to suggest that some things can be done to halt the slide but it requires a government objective more immutable than the business objectives to seek favourable treatment. I dont like any of our chances.

Comment pages
1 2 4499
Comments are closed.