Many people have a propensity to discount the future.
"A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the
bush." Discounting the future is one of the most
common practices in the business world and,
therefore, we're often forced to confront
the practice head on if we are to have a genuine, happy
marriage between economics, ecology, and ethics.

There are psychological reasons why humans often favour
the present rather than the future, and of course there
are economic reasons, most importantly a well-founded
belief that productivity increases over time -
even though this might not hold true indefinitely.
The psychological reasons have to do with risk aversion,
for example, any one of us might not be around to benefit
from a good time in the future - so let's have it now
regardless of the long-term consequences.

New ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot, are
threats to those who have become comfortable in their
idealogies.

What a pity.

i note the distinct lack of fact on this thread
and recall only too well the many bits of spin

chief spin merchant mr flannelry
has bought a beach side property
so so much for all gores 6 meter sea rise..'prediction'
flannelry for one knows thats spin

we got the fools saying the reef will die
[the reefs are made from lime[calsee-um]..so any acid increae would disolve the reefs..[and the white calcium cliffs of dover..before disolving clam shells]

c02 isnt opoisen..its the basis for life
we exhale it plants inhale it..[if we got deforrstation killing the lungs of the earth..has got nothing to do with them snmokestacks belching..STEAM..

[that white stuff your guilted over
is steam..GET IT?]..c02 is an invisable gas
get it

that old crone [thatcher]
first thunk of this new you bueat tax
but then it was cause of global cooling..lol
then howard thunk of it and he said it was cause of heating...lol

next we got a silly girl selling it
when any warming..is from that HUGE OZONE hole
remember the cfc's adverts showing deserts...?

then we got sewrage...inflow
changing the water prophiles
as the world develops

so much spin
so many lies

but then we cop this

lexie,...""New ideas,..instead of being welcomed
for the opportunities..they open up""

for the rich seeking more taxes from govts
nice clean green subsidies...lol..for infastructure'
like building free gas pipelines to gladstone for export

or building windmills made in germany/china
to make nice gren jobs..for euro slaves or chinese peasents

that witch ditch actually says 1,000,000 new clean green jobs
well spain went gren big time..and now is broke
and their unemployment is so massive they are going to default..and the unemployed will have to go on auterity measures

great stuff up juliar

""for the improvement...of the human lot,"''

lol

""are threats
to those who have become
comfortable in their idealogies.""

yes clean green idiotologies

""What a pity.""

yea
so many fools
that dont know how to think!

lol

It hasbeen amusing to see Joanne Cosling (spouse of the inimmitable David Evans) go by the name of Nova on her own personal blog-site.

She hasbeen, after all, hasbeen given 'star status' under her own name at the US neo-con think-tank Heartland Institute's "conference" on climate change.

Personally, hasbeen, I think it important the government go through the process of inviting discussion/involvement on climate change (which flip-flop Abbott now says is real).

Abbott & Co chose not to constructively contribute - and now cry foul when they are left out - roflmho!

What I really find offensive, hasbeen, is 'naysayer politicians' (and their cheer-leaders) now demanding they have their 'opinions' recorded in Hansard - notwithstanding the government never tabling the wealth of science in support of AGW, or indeed any of the IPCC's reports.

I'm curious, what is your defintion of 'catastrophic', hasbeen?

Why do I ask?
Because the vast majority of scientists do not believe AGW will be catastrophic (although you and your ilk like to give AGW the catastrophic prefix) - it will be bad enough as it is.

Before I go to bed, OUG: you are wrong about Tim Flannery's "beach side property".

In August, The Australian had a story about Tim Flannery's new waterfront home - blogged about by naysayers ever since.

The Australian story was the fact that Flannery bought a house near the water, showing he was insincere in his warnings about sea level rise. The article also suggested Flannery had frightened the elderly into selling their 'seaside' homes to him.

But the Hawkesbury River (where Flannery's home stands) has steeply rising banks. Waterfront homes there are several metres above sea level and are not endangered by a one metre sea level rise.

Flannery made this point to the Australian but declined to say exactly how far above sea level his house was because he was concerned about revealing information about the location. A not unreasonable concern, given the recent threats climate scientists have received here in Australia.

So, The Australian dutifully printed a map showing the exact location of Flannery's house.

This was too much, even for The Australian - the on-line version of the article has been removed, and The Australian published an apology to Flannery.

Are you able to appologise, 'one under God'?

My guess? Nope - you only believe in what you want to believe.

Bazz, as reported in the following link (much the same as I have been saying):

"Things aren't working like they used to or perhaps never really worked. The rupture between environmental values and economic growth has always been there and bodes ominously for the future of our planet ...

We will also learn the bitter truth all over again that the economy always trumps the environment. Nothing will change until politics and how we live with nature itself changes."

http://allafrica.com/stories/201109230847.html

avagoodweekend

bonmot..quote..""But the Hawkesbury/River
(where Flannery's/home stands)..has steeply rising..banks.""

yep mate that sounds..just fine and dandy
too clever/by half..though mate

look at your words
keeping in mind al gores spin..of 6 to 9 meter rises..!
[dont make me get a link..to him saying it]

""Waterfront homes there..are several metres*
..above sea level::

mate..'several meters'..that alone
refutes all gores THREAT..of 9 meters..!

""and are not endangered
by a one metre sea level rise."""

so that finantial genious
expects..*less than one meter...!

al gore lied
al gore LIED..!
why did al gore LIE?

fear spin threat
or to trade carbon credits...in his own carbon credit..franchise

mate thats only one lie

only one point you half/refuted
what of my other points

uk is built on white-cliffs
acid melts calcium..out of sea shells..[lol]..SEE the spin

why aint the chalk cliffs
or the limerstine of the reefs..*melting

heck what about that picture of a polar bear..'drowing'
to wit the best swimming..mammels after whales and dolphines

""Flannery made this point..to the Australian
but declined to say exactly..how far above sea level his house was""

LOL

think why mate..!

that would mean..he is staking his word..on it
but look at it this way..

HE is..staking his house on it

""because he was concerned..about revealing information"""

that would refute all gore..!

""about the location.""

lol
thats just ..to build the fear spin
that we will threaten him..

[heck mate his house adress is on council record..on the transhere docco.s..on so many official files
that excuse dont swim neither]

yet you
and your fellow DECIEVED say..
""A not unreasonable concern,""

lol

because you NEED TO BELIEVE..*YOU GOT IT RIGHT
and we hollow-caust deneying ignorants..got it wrong..

mate
the threats reported
were proven faulse

yet you in ignorance porpgate the deciete>>""given the recent threats climate scientists..have received here in Australia.""

mate get real

you still presented..*no data

presented no actual extracts
of the 900 pages of new rules..!

that ensure us bailing out
the worlds carbon trading..*market

funny bout that

selective ignorance?
or blind guilt?

no facts..!