Interesting that fungochumley should mention Keynes since he was an interventionist, in fact he invented it. Government intervention along the way to correct aberrations as they occurred. This is exactly what those who want to correct global warming are advocating. Also interesting, on a different subject, so called 'good' economists have been ignoring Keynes for years and he is suddenly back in favour because of the sub prime crisis. If you must use quotes to back up your rhetoric it might be an idea to do at least minimal research into the source.

Q&A “by working together in mutual respect”
Based on your past repeated and unsubstantiated claims that I am “misguided” (despite my repeated request for your to illustrate when and where I have posted a misguided statement) ,

I find the notion of “working together in mutual respect”

howlingly hilarious, ROFLMAO

How can anyone be expected to work with someone who declares them as, “stuck in the mud”?

Now to more pertinent, things I see from his post kula is drawing attention to

“Have the Newfoundland and North Sea cod fisheries not collapsed due to overfishing”

Yes but what has “overfishing” got to do with “AGW”?

“overfishing comes down to population pressure, so get rid of 5 billion (out of the present 6 billion of so) folk and we solve that problem, without diluting the gene pool.

– I trust you understand the difference. Maybe you could do some research into the effects of AGW on fish stocks… I wonder, if I looked, I might actually find two opposing scientific opinions to the impact of warming of fish breeding activity

Q&A on the matter of risk management, at least one of the four major Aussie banking groups no longer check the signatories on a cheque worth less than $25,000. Their risk management assessment determined, the cost of doing it outweighed the consequences. I further remember a famous US negligence action in which (I think) Ford determined the “risk and costs” of being sued were lower than the certain costs for the full recall of a car with defective fuel tanks.

“Risk management” is not about specifically doing something.

Risk management is about comparing the costs of doing something versus not doing it.

In my view and that of many here, regardless of the hypothetical forecasts of Stern and the control freaks, the costs of addressing what might or might not be “AGW” are unsupported, partly due to the absence of broadly recognized, consistent and reliable data, being available for analysis, let alone having been analysed.

Spin the science whatever way you want, any statistical analysis will suggest AGW remains a null-hypothesis.

David,

I’m glad you found this interesting, but I’m unsure as to the point you are making. Have you fallen for the AGWers own propaganda that all skeptics are free market fundamentalists with vested commercial interests? I am neither, and have no problem with intervention for the common good. So unless you actually disagree with the quote, your prejudiced assumption seems to have rendered the rest of your post fairly insubstantial, and the cheap shot it leads to has landed somewhere in the bushes.

I, however, am interested that you describe global warming as an “aberration”, that is, from mine, “the act of wandering from the usual way or normal course”, and needs correcting.

Given the 4 billion year history of the earth and the continual change in climate, could you tell me:

What is the usual way and normal course? (Much of the debate is about whether recent global warming, manmade or not, was significantly anomalous.)

What period was “correct”? Jurassic? BC? AD? Ice Age? Your birth year?

Are you talking only about correcting supposed manmade aberrations?

If things overall were better in a warmer world, should we still correct it?

If natural cooling, such as a new mini Ice Age, occurs, do we endeavour to recorrect by, say, pumping carbon into the atmosphere?

Whose hands should we place the temperature control in? (When I’m driving with others, it is usually a matter of complicated negotiation.)

How great do you believe our capacity is to control the climate? (We don't seem to do too perfectly with the economy.)

How much money do we spend adjusting it one way, when unforeseen circumstances could quickly cancel out all our efforts, or produce more pressing demands? (‘Whatever the cost’ appears to be your answer.)

Should we withdraw funds from, say, breast cancer research if we had to? I wonder how women with breast cancer would feel about that?

Finally, did you quit architecture because the costs kept blowing out, and buildings were never completed, as you kept adding more and more structural support and safety devices ad infinitum - just in case?

Kulu

the fact you have been refuted doesn't mean the people who point it out have got mental problems. You are simply adding personal argument to your existing pile of fallacies.

The disgraceful thing is that all argument by the advocates of government control of the winds that blow, follow the same course. First there is a histrionic appeal to absent authority, dodgy guesses and non-sequiturs, which when you critically analyse, regresses into circular argument assuming what is in issue, which when you name, regresses into name-calling.

"Your mother smelt of elderberries" is the ultimate intellectual standard we are dealing with here whenever I dare to question the new orthodoxy, dressed up in a lot of arrogant patronising mumbo-jumbo about climatology.

Did you know we've got a world crisis because the electricity is leaking out of all the power points? Quick! "Do something!" Let's start killing people on a large scale in a superstitious belief in omnipotent government and the evil of human freedom.

How many people should have to die to satisfy the neo-puritans?

fungochumley
The quote, 'The cure is worse than the illness.' Why cause the illness in the first place? If a person is becoming overweight through over eating, eat less. If our actions are impacting on the weather patterns modify our actions. We can not control the weather. If you want to look at the futile attempts of the human race to control the weather for economic/military purposes look at the work of John Von Neumann. We cannot control the weather but we can stop stuffing it up.
Why did I give up Architecture? Who says I have? Is personal attack and fear mongering all you have? Not much is it?

David,

“Why cause the illness in the first place?”

Ah, a world without illness, or pollution, or pooh, or perhaps even better, people, who have a nasty habit of effecting things. Have to get rid of all those butterflies and other animals too though. And viruses and bacteria…They “impact” too. The world, life, climate, people, you, me, and them are, and always have been, messy, dirty and chaotic. There is no holy state in nature, in the United States, or in your soul, which is being continually threatened by evil forces. You only imagine it, and create enemies, so as to believe in and defend your 'pure' soul. It is actually, as Michael Crichton saw, just a State of Fear. Everything these days is “war on drugs”, “fight against cancer”, “invasion of cells” and "impacts"– as if there is some perfect pure state in you or the world which is constantly under threat. Cancer isn’t consciously malicious you know? – I refer you to Susan Sontag’s ‘Illness and its Metaphors’)

“If our actions are impacting on the weather patterns modify our actions. We can not control the weather.”

This just seems like contradiction to me. And what about positive “impacts”?

“Is personal attack and fear mongering all you have?” No, and I can’t see where you got this, but I do have a few questions, as yet unanswered, and a good sense of irony.

Your hypersensitivity is evidence of what Bazz (elsewhere) also sees as the current insecurity in the convictions of AGWers. This, of course, could be turned into healthy openminded skepicism and dialogue, but unfortunately is turned into hostility, personal attacks, defamatory slurs, and attempts to “create” an enemy out of anyone who even questions their theories and worldview.

Perhaps you’ll get back to me at some stage on some of mine, to which I add -

Do you believe in restraining 'unsustainable' growth through unsustainable spending?