Climate risk

You shouldn't post untruths either. This was a serious thread and the tin foil hat brigade have hijacked it with their utterly offensive non scientific delusions. I'm totally disappointed that the mods have allowed this to continue contrary to the stated rules of this site.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

 

"It is the mark of an amoral or morally myopic mind to even entertain thoughts of animal cruelty, child abuse, genocide, or the death of billions of people through inaction on climate change."

- LibGS

 

Im loving that youve quoted possibly the worlds most famous empiricist thinker to justify your rejection of science.

Thats awesome.

 

Aristotle didn't actually say this. It is often attributed to him, via the Nicomachean Ethics. The actual translation is this. Note that Aristotle would be looking at you and wondering if you actually understand science.

I should look for the original, given that I can read ancient Greek.

We must therefore be content if, in dealing with subjects and starting from premises thus uncertain, we succeed in presenting a broad outline of the truth: when our subjects and our premises are merely generalities, it is enough if we arrive at generally valid conclusions. Accordingly we may ask the student also to accept the various views we put forward in the same spirit; for it is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness in each kind which the nature of the particular subject admits.

 

I'm loving that your mind is so closed, that you think that because I post something that you disagree with, in your mind I reject science, and totally miss the point of the quote.

 

I get the quote. Not sure you get irony.

Youre right though, ive got little idea what you believe about CC. Ive asked you a couple of times to expand or explain but youve been very coy about it.

Hmmm?

 

Dunno I have never asked for any. If you care to you could call a council with such a water body, or even possibly an insurance company for that matter and ask about the official figures they are using. For me the issues has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the figures, but what impact they have on development, risk, and insurance. Those impacts are real regardless of whether a flood event actually occurs.

 

The major trend of global warming started about ~20,000 years ago.
One has to consider the major trend whenever referring to climate change or warming. Here are some observations:

20,000 years ago: major ice caps stared to melt; e.g. West Hudson Bay was covered by ~4km thick ice;

6,000 years ago: most ice caps disappeared (only Greenland and Antarctica ice caps left). Sea level went up ~120m.

In between 20,000 and 6,000 years ago, there were “sub-markets” (cold reversal or extreme warm periods) in the “market”, but the warming trend is the main thing.

From 6,000 years ago to present, melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice caps is mostly dominated (home buyers + investors). The global warming trend continues => Sydney/Mel housing market continuously grows.

What happens from now on? No doubt, the global warming trend continues until Greenland ice cap (and part of Antarctic ice cap) disappears. There will be some cold reversal and extreme warm periods along the way, but these will not stop the warming trend (of Syd/Melb housing market?).

Can human stop the global warming trend? No. Not possible.

How long the global warming trend lasts? Human’s forecast: there may be several thousand years more to go (?)

What happens after the global warming trend stops? Past cyclic patterns indicate we could enter next ice-age in about 20,000 years.

I have to make the content relevant to the forum by adding some “market info”.

We can curb or reduce pollution (by burning less coal, oil, gas etc.), but we cannot have any impact on the global warming trend IMO.

Controlling climate change or global warming is a "fantasy" ….. = try to “tame” climate …

Maybe some intelligent guys in this world want reduce pollution by borrowing the fancy slogan of “tackling climate change” …. It is not a bad thing as a whole.

 

It doesn't matter whether you are a climate change believer or a climate change skeptic (for investment purposes)
The only thing that matters is whether insurance companies have modelled climate change risks and whether they have priced in those risks accordingly and how much you have to pay to be covered or will you be covered at all!

For the Earth and its inhabitants, that's another climate change matter altogether......

 

If in doubt; just make sure you buy a place a little bit higher up the hill?

 

It could be said in reverse.

But; as is the case; we fortunately have a forum which allows open discussion.

What we shouldn't have on this forum is a report button. Or an ignore button.

Folks who are overly sensitive and get upset and indignant about a difference of opinion are a problem for open discussion.

A bloke made a pretty strong remark about gay folks over on another thread. Completely against what I believe and know about gay folks.

Instead of going into a hissy fit and having a big sook to the mods about how offensive he was (he's possibly simply being a troll just to stir up and to get a response), I put forward another post in reply.

Can we all grow up, here?

 

Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

"Dr Evans, who holds six degrees in mathematics and is a former climate modeller for the government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, claims to have found an error in the application of the equation."

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opi...27555674611?sv=c408b33cef164795b9a30e809c6cb8

 

I thought this comment on that article was a ripper:

"4rd Newsflash: After billions of dollors spent on research, scientists have revealed the climate change is so profound that every single climate on the planet changes every single day. This has led to a further discovery that there are profound changes in every climage 4 times every year. Scientists have called these changes "seasons"."

 

If Dr Evans had really proved what he claims to have proved he'd win a Nobel prize or something. Rather, he's publishing his findings in that reputable scientific journal...his wife's blog. The fact that Miranda Devine wrote the article is telling in itself. I note that it is published in the "opinion" rather than the "science" section.

 

Or the opposite version - not a very popular opinion obviously.

 

In order to believe in the article, you actually have to believe in anthropogenic climate change (even if it's at a much lower rate), I'd imagine that puts you into a bit of a pickle!

 

True. I don't believe we (humans) have any effect on the Planet's temperature at all, and I also don't believe that the degree of CC or GW which is spread around by the various pundits is anything dramatic - not outside of normal cycles and/or patterns..

Dr. Evans was refuting accuracy of a model used for the future predictions of CC.

Anthropogenic or not; the point is that the information we public are being supplied, and the hysteria that goes hand in glove with that by all and sundry is - by his calculations - up to 10 times inaccurate.

And at the end of the day; it is all still based on - a model.

The best estimate for a temp reduction by the whole Planet's population from Carbon emissions reduction programs was; 0.03 of a degree by the end of this century.

And that was before this latest discovery.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/why_does_warmist_flannery_live_waterside