<continued>

Scientists know that, on very short notice, it is possible that a cataclysmic meteor could strike the earth and devastate life on this planet at least as badly as GW. Surely then, according to the notion of "giving the planet the benefit of the doubt" we should be bending the worlds economy to building defences against the potential threat of such meteoric disasters?

The point is that there is no point dreaming up nightmare scenarios and then thinking "anything is better than that, so, no matter how unlikely that scenario, we should expend all our energies to avoiding it." There are just plain too many "nightmare scenarios" to deal with this way. The only sensible approach is to risk manage the challenges we face. That means assessing the risk of each challenge; the consequences of each challenge; and the cost of doing something about it; then weighing these issues up against other challenges before determining how we use our limited resources.

In the case of GW there may well be a consensus that it has broadly occurred over recent years, but no one can sensibly argue that there is anything like a quantitative consensus on the consequences, or our ability to influence it. Without answering these questions it is folly to commit ourselves to an economically catastrophic ETS, which is likely to considerably harm our ability to adapt to whatever global warming brings.

Even worse will be to lock in an ETS by signing an international treaty, when as any but the incredibly naïve know, outside the West, few countries will seriously enforce it. If you accept that, then the conclusion is almost inevitable that an international ETS will have the same effect as a tariff on the clean industries of the West and will instead promote the far more polluting industries of the developing world.

A globally endorsed ETS scheme will actually worsen the worlds emissions problems.

StevenMeyer You write

'Runner & OUG,

My understanding is that both of you reject evolution. If you have decoupled your belief systems from OBJECTIVE reality to that extent there is no way for me to have an OBJECTIVE dialogue with you.

You are arrogant or deceived if you think evolution has a true scientific basis. In fact you are far less rational than those who admit their position is based on rational faith.

“Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that conclusively proves global warming is driven by Human Created CO2”

No, but I can follow the news and the messages espoused by scientists and other people that I have faith in and I can believe the news when I hear about glaciers, iceshelfs and increasing atmospheric CO2 content and draw my own conclusions and present my opinion accordingly.

RawMustard, of course you can’t present anything in the scientific literature to the contrary, that is conclusive and that many other scientists wouldn’t strongly disagree with.

And you certainly can’t assert categorically that AGW in complete rubbish…surely.

So my question remains: how can you possibly justify not erring on the side of caution?

“If it aint broke, why fix it?”

Because intelligent people can see that if we continue on our current path it’ll become broke…big-time! Or at least there is a significant chance of it becoming broke. Look ahead Mr Mustard. Extrapolate. It really isn’t hard. Of course you can’t tell just exactly what will happen but you can see the general trend very clearly.

You seem to hold a very interesting position – you can appreciate the continuous growth issue but not the climate change issue. That seems like a very strange viewpoint to me.

Steven,

Go to the naughty corner and write 10 times "I shall not pick on other peoples prejudices."

Col,

I challenge you give us your proof on the topic (put up or shut up).
Or is picking sundry orifices the source of your inspiration and what you find the sum total of your reasoning.

Stevenlmeyer firstly you do not seem to have considered the heat dissipated by the continual evaporation of water but really I can close you down with only two points.
If the IPCC was anything there would/could not be any argument about temperatures but of course there is. K Rudd says last ten years have been the hottest but others say cooling? How on earth can there be an argument about that.
Secondly, easy peasy, you and all your worrywort friends turn off your house utilities and the resultant drop in power, water etc will fix the problem
Oh yes another thing have a look at Wilson Tuckey's Parliament home page he seems to have more ideas than Al Gore or you lol!

Thirty one THOUSAND US scientists, including 9000 PhDs sigined a petition to say AGW aint happening.

How much more do you want.

When the story of the lying & cheeting of the warmests is all over the net, does that convince you?

When the cops put the IPCC bosses, & the leading warmests in the clink, for fraud, will that convince you?

No, I thought not.

Try Jennifer Marohassy's blog. The report of gas balance was written up there, for one place.