Climate risk

Discussion in 'Investment Strategy' started by Beelzebub, 12th Aug, 2015.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
Tags:
  1. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Dont be shy.... What's your theory?
     
  2. AndrewTDP

    AndrewTDP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    764
    Location:
    Newcastle
    A global plot of climate scientists funded by the UN who think by making up climate change they will get more money. Something something something probably socialists something something Agenda 21 something something tax.

    The only people brave enough to stand up for the truth are scientists who work for/are largely funded by oil companies. They are truly independent with no vested interests.
     
    SaiMan23, LibGS and Esel like this.
  3. Azazel

    Azazel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,091
    Location:
    Brisbane
    You can probably tell by now, I'm anything but shy.
    RE forum, I'll leave it at that.
    Don't be scared to do some research on that question. A wise man has more questions than answers...
     
  4. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    Carbon levels are a result of increased temps (not the other way around as is being spruiked on a daily basis), but I also heard; there is an 800 year lag between the temp rise and the carbon dioxide levels....this could be BS, of course; seems like it to me.

    I seem to remember someone recently posted a link to some info about the sea ice increasing - which was opposed to the predictions and estimates?

    Increasing sea ice would mean....colder water?

    Key words there being predictions and estimates.

    See; this is what I mean with a lot of this stuff; a lot of the blurb is to do with "models", "estimates", "predictions", "probables", "likely to"....and so on.

    Nothing concrete at all in those words, and now we have an increase in sea ice - while everyone is saying the water is getting warmer..o_O

    Maybe the sea temps did rise for a bit....I actually posted a chart a little while ago with a few figures about that; slight anomalies, actually.
     
  5. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I dont know how you cope with the cognitive dissonance of trying to use scientific research to reject the scientific method.

    99.9% of climate scientists are now in agreement. I cant get my head around how you would you think you have a better understanding than the scientific community.
     
  6. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    Not at all; I've already stated that I believe there is CC - just not to the hysterical levels that are reported and predicted, and certainly not my mankind....

    Your lot say 99% of scientists agree on CC and GW.

    Ok; but now we have reports of thickening sea ice, and Earth's temps not going up for the last 18 years.

    How do you expect folks to believe what they say; or; at the very least; not to add a lot of salt while digesting?

    If I was 18, impressionable, idealistic and naive, I might blindly go for it.

    All I'm saying is don't believe all you hear or read without first finding out what the agendas are.
     
    Last edited: 14th Aug, 2015
  7. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    beezlebub, its not a decision ive had to worry about.

    i wonder though how governments will share the financial cost of climate change in the future. Will individuals be have to be responsible for their own decisions and insurance? What happens as insurance companies stop covering some residential areas? Are disaster levys fair? Should state governments pay for sea defences to protect valuable coastal properties?

    I think how we pay for future climate change damage is going to be a huge dilema for australia. Particularly with residential areas expanding in bushfire, flood and cyclone prone areas.

    Not to mention how and where we are going to house the millions of climate refugees.
     
    LibGS likes this.
  8. Azazel

    Azazel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,091
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Where did you pull this number from?
     
  9. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    'I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.'

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

    http://www.jamespowell.org
     
  10. Azazel

    Azazel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,091
    Location:
    Brisbane
  11. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Powell is director of the national physical science consortium in the USA. He has included his methodology if you want to pick at it.

    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/newmethodology.html

    'I found that 5 of 24,210 articles rejected anthropogenic global warming [AGW], a rate of 1 in 4,842. Since two articles had the same author, the rate of rejection by authors is 4 in 69,406 or 1 author in 17,352. This result would justify the claim that over 99.99% of climate scientists publishing in 2013 and 2014 accept AGW. I would not go that far, for in reviewing thousands of titles and abstracts, it is possible to misread a few. Moreover, an article might question AGW in its text, even though the title and abstract do not reveal that questioning. I do believe that is more than safe to say that over 99.9% of climate scientists publishing today accept AGW. Otherwise, to find one article that rejects AGW one would not have to read thousands of articles. This is as close to unanimity as it gets in science.'
     
  12. Azazel

    Azazel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,091
    Location:
    Brisbane
  13. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
  14. Azazel

    Azazel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,091
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It's an example of people pulling numbers out of their...

    "Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."
     
  15. Esel

    Esel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2015
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    Melbourne
    What youve quoted is dripping with bias, generalisations and loaded language but completely lacking any evidence, detail or citations. Its a piece of fluff opinion piece. By its own admission its based on the opinion of some random with access to a laptop. Whereas the 'authors' and 'alarmists' it mentions are usually refered to as 'scientists'.

    Its not really relevant to clog up this thread with fluff, nonsense and conspiracy theories. Start a new thread. There were some entertaining ones on somersoft.
     
    LibGS and AndrewTDP like this.
  16. Azazel

    Azazel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,091
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Don't do it then.
     
  17. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    Are there any official figures from those Councils for measurements done on sea levels in their areas?
     
  18. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    Um; still waiting.
     
  19. MTR

    MTR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    27,786
    Location:
    My World
    Yes, avoided mid west USA, cyclones and insurance is dodgy:confused:
     
  20. Hoffy

    Hoffy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    94
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Shouldn't it be 100%? I can't imagine there would be a single "climate scientist" who didn't subscribe to the primary theory of their science. Your stat is akin to saying 99.9% of evolution scientists are in agreement that evolution exists.