Does Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun columnist, insure his house against fire?

Why should he? The probability of a modern house in Melbourne burning down is small. Surely it is better to save the insurance premiums than to waste money on such a remote contingency?

I'm sure that as a prudent man Andrew Bolt has insured his house against fire. It may be a remote contingency but if it happens a fire would have catastrophic consequences.

Why is this relevant? Why should we care about Andrew Bolt's fire insurance?

Andrew Bolt is a persistent debunker of theories about human induced global warming. Here is a link to his latest column on the subject.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21788999-25717,00.html

In it he names scientists who he says are climate change sceptics.

Let's be clear on something. We cannot be certain how the Earth's climate will respond to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The climate system is too complex for us to model with any degree of confidence. The only way to be certain is to keep pumping out CO2 and see what happens.

What climate models have established is this. There is a RISK, a REAL risk, that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 could result in horrible outcomes. I am sure that even the climate change sceptics that Andrew Bolt cites would agree. The risk is real.

What do we do when faced with a risk of this magnitude?

We buy insurance.

And that's why we should be taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Because we can't be sure of the outcomes but we know we face a real risk. The cost of CO2 emission reductions is our insurance premium. The amount of the premium, 1% of GDP according to Sir Nicholas Stern, is peanuts in comparison to the magnitude of the risk. At current global growth rates we're sacrificing less than six months of growth.

That's the real inconvenient truth. We need to pay an insurance premium.

If Andrew Bolt carries fire insurance he's being just a tad hypocritical.

Steven, I agree with what you are saying and thought your post was originally thought out, thank you.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read your title was:
Yeah, if my name was "Bolt" I'd opt for insurance!

Will keep an eye on your thread, just don't have much time to post right now but you have raised a great point.

you left out motivation.

bolt probably has fire insurance. but it pays him to decry global warming. his career is built on saying what some very rich institutions, and some very insecure people, want to hear.

what he actually believes is not necessarily what he says, but he believes certainly in maximizing his income, just like you and me.

Andrew Bolt prefers to influence his readers by banging on about global warming.

I challenge him to write an article on global pollution. Now that's a real science which he is unable to dispute, unless he wants to be certified insane!

Problem is Bolt wouldn't know a VOC from a sock, so he sticks to his inane tripe about global warming.

However, the strategy for mitigating global pollution and the resultant deaths of humans, animals and the eco systems, is the same for global warming - stop polluting!

The recidivist polluters must indeed be in retreat when they employ the very ignorant Bolt to insure against any mitigation in their unethical and obscene profits!

I received the following response from Andrew Bolt:

>>I insure my house against fire, but not against destruction by herds of wildebeest. I also don't pay premiums in excess of the damage insured against.>>

My reply:

Hi Andrew,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Are you asserting that the risks posed by pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are on a par with the risk of wildebeest destroying a house in Melbourne? In other words, are you saying that the risks are effectively zero?

If that is your position you are, scientifically speaking, on very shaky ground. I don’t think there are many reputable scientists who put the risks at zero. Even the most sceptical of scientists want, at the very least, to see more research just in case.

OR

Is it your position that the net economic damage that increasing greenhouse gas levels could cause are less than 1% of GDP – that in effect Nicholas Stern's suggested "insurance premium" is too high?

Honestly I don't know. If the worst case scenario is 1 – 2% of GDP loss due to increasing greenhouse gas levels then we probably don’t need insurance at all. However even the sceptics seem to agree that if rising greenhouse gas levels pose any threat at all, then the damage would be a substantial position of GDP.

What would you consider a REASONABLE insurance premium?

Of course climate changes will have winners and losers. At the moment the German tourist industry seems to be on a role.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6632615.stm

CELIVIA

thank you for your kind words.

DEMOS

I cannot read Andrew Bolt's mind. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm assuming that he believes what he writes.

A lot of waffle just to tell everyone that you disagree with Andrew Bolt. Bolt will not change his mind, I will not change my mind and, you will not change your mind.

I think that Mr. Bolt and I probably sleep much better than you do, though, assuming that you are genuinely worried about all that ghastly CO2 - which I believe - as probably does Mr. Bolt - has nothing to do with cyclic, natural climate change.

The main difference is that Mr. Bolt and I believe a different set of scientists from the ones you do. Now, I don't know anything about you, but the difference is probably more a matter of politics than it is with facts (on both sides, of course). I am too old to live long enought to see who was right (we are talking 20-50 years according to your gurus), but I have been around long enough to know that the left-inclined members of our society, when they feel ignored, like to stir up things and frighten people.

I think that this nonsense is just another case of that.

LOL Leigh

I've been called many things in my life. Phillip Adams, the quintessential Australian Leftie, called me a "silly little s hit!"

But I don't think anyone before now has called me "left inclined." "Right-wing free-market fundamentalist" is the more usual appellation.

The question is not which set of scientists to believe. Climatology is an uncertain discipline and wide ranges of informed opinion are to be expected. I am not able to decide who is right and who is wrong in this debate.

Are you?

I venture to say the answer is "No." You are no more able to decide which set of scientists is right than me. If I am mistaken in my assessment of your scientific capabilities I'm sure you'll put me right.

But the REAL question is this.

Is there a real risk that continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere could lead to calamitous outcomes?

From the perspective of a dispassionate lay-person the only rational answer has to be "yes."

That is to say:

"Yes, there is a real RISK of calamity."

NOT:

"Yes the greenies are certainly right and we're all going to die."

By "real risk" I mean a risk that the probability of unfavourable outcomes is appreciably greater than zero. How much greater is uncertain.

Why is acknowledging the existence of risk the only rational response? There are many reasons of which the two most important are BASIC PHYSICS and the WEIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION.

Unless you can give me some certain method of deciding which set of scientists is right, Leigh, you are tacitly admitting that the risk exists.

This is not about ideology or "Left" vs "Right." It's about RISK ASSESSMENT and RISK MANAGEMENT.

Leigh

Most posters, unlike you and Mr Bolt, are not debating natural cyclic climate change.

We are debating on the man-made active volcano we have created which is mimicking and competing against natural climatic events.

You may do well to investigate past natural catastrophes and species extinctions where long-term volcanic activity spewed out excessive amounts of CO2 creating a greenhouse effect. Many paleontologists believe that the thermal limits for species, for their survival, were exceeded with a warmer planet which also created major environmental fluctuations and many species, therefore, perished.

The global, human volcano is spewing out carbon based chemicals 24/7 and has done so for a couple of centuries and the pollution is drastically increasing.

The current greenhouse with its human contributions, promises to be the daddy of all major catastrophes - and many of the players appear to be re-incarnations of Nero who just fiddled and fiddled and........!

Dickie

I asked Leigh how he knows which set of scientists to believe.

I am now asking you the same question,

You wrote:

>>The current greenhouse with its human contributions, promises to be the daddy of all major catastrophes >>

Are you TRULY able to assess the evidence for this statement and weigh it up against the counter-claims of dissenting scientists?

I don't see how you can claim certainty where certainty is IMPOSSIBLE. That's why I have as much difficulty with people who make emotional claims about impending catastrophe as I do with those who, like Leigh, dismiss the dangers of climate change as Left wing scaremongering.

The only certainty we have is that an appreciable risk exists. Those who demand anymore certainty before they will act are asking the impossible. They're in effect saying "I'll pay my insurance premiums if my house burns down."

Those who, like yourself, claim to know with absolute certainty that we are headed for catastrophe are actually doing more harm than good because your claims of omniscience are so easy to ridicule. I effect you're a godsend to those who want an excuse to refrain from acting.

Dealing with climate change is so difficult precisely because we have to make decisions that involve huge sums of money and will affect the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the face of great uncertainty and many unknowns. And we have to do it knowing that at any time new data may show it was all a waste of time and money. We need to acknowledge that upfront and cease pretending we can be certain.

Steven

"Which set of scientists to believe?"

One scientist praised by Andrew Bolt was Ian Plimer who, in my view, lacks sufficient credibility to speak on climate change. For instance Mr Plimer has a vested interest in the continuing endeavours by his mining colleagues to reduce our states to vast tracks of wasteland, pock-marked by open pits and waste dumps, with scant regard for future generations.

Mr Plimer was the eccentric gentleman who spent some $400,000 on disproving some silly bugger's claim that he'd found a piece of Noah's ark! Mr Plimer was ordered to pay all legal costs!

The human race is the most irresponsible animal on this planet. For thousands of years we have burned, destroyed, killed, looted and defiled vast tracts of wonderful forests, pristine waterways and magnificent landscapes. Why? Because it suited us to do so.

My interest has been sparked by a paper I read by Dewey McLean, Professor Emeritus of Geology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, who obtained his PhD at Stanford University. His main fields have been in paleontology and cretaceous research. And no, he has not entered the debate about A/climate change but writes on previous impacts of excessive CO2 on all living species and the environment and of the thermal limits for embryonic survival.

As mentioned in previous threads, I am particularly interesed in Rosalie Bertell's (PhD) writings "Planet Earth - The Latest Weapon of War" and "No Immediate Danger - Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth." Rosalie Bertell has a doctorate in biometrics and mathematics and has worked in the field of environmental health since 1969. She writes at length on human interference with the troposphere, stratosphere, ionosphere and weather manipulation. Her academic achievements and awards are too numerous to mention.

Your suggestion that I am pretending to be certain of man-made catastrophes is not a concern for me.

Man-made catastrophic events have already occurred and are on the increase - some obvious, some insidious. We have already destabilised Earth's ecosystems, causing widespread devastation in economic, social and environmental terms. And that devastation happens to be scientific. Any challenges?

Leigh I seriously challenge your statement about lefties scaring people, the conservatives have a long history of scaremongering, from Menzies with "THE YELLOW PERIL" and REDS UNDER THE BED" to Howard's scarmongering about refugees and terrorists.
Scientists are by nature a conservative bunch, so when 2500 of them say global warming is man made I am not going to dispute that.
Its a pity the rabid right ring ratbags hadn't got on to global warming first, then we might be doing something about it.
Unfortunetely the rabbits (and the rabbits in OLO) that run things can only see things in terms of left and right, political debate won't solve this problem, it doesn't matter 2 monkeys f@rts who wins the debate, actions not words will solve this problem.
Besides what is smart about waste, we could be creating clean energy, from solar, wind, geothermal, and wave, yet we are burning valuable non renewables.
Doesn't Bolt and his supporters ever think "what if we are wrong" I find their arrogance and certainity staggering.

Alanpoi "what if we are wrong" is the right question to ask.

Call those of us who want to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the "pro-actives." I count myself among them.

Call those who profess to see no need for action the "in-actives."

If we pro-actives are wrong we will have wasted a lot of money. I mean really gargantuan sums. Sums that could IN RETROSPECT have been used to provide (say):

--clean drinking water to children all over the world saving literally millions of lives

--mosquito netting to everyone who needs it – Malaria still the world's biggest killer. Even those who do not die may be afflicted for life.

--Anti-retrovirals for people afflicted with HIV

And much more.

In addition we will have needlessly destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people who depend on the oil and coal industries. Many of them, especially those located in third world countries, will not be able to find other work.

The consequences of pro-actives being wrong are huge and, the name calling of people like yourself and dickie notwithstanding, THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.

Against this must be weighed the consequences of the in-actives being wrong. In that case we could have a global catastrophe.

The debate has become sterile. The in-actives like Leigh maintain, either that there is no evidence or that there is no certainty, and refuse to contemplate action. They accuse the pro-actives of bad faith and resort to name calling.

The pro-actives assert there is certainty and also resort to name calling. They are equally certain the in-actives are acting in bad faith.

The reality is simply this. We face a risk and we have to take action. The decision is hard precisely because the sums involved are huge, people's livelihoods are at stake and there is no certainty.

Steven

On the domestic front, I believe you are being a little dramatic when you claim that the "sums involved are huge."

Employees in all mining activities in Australia number some 1% of total employment in this country. Mining contributes around 5% of GDP. A gradual though immediate commencement of more renewable energy industries could provide much employment.

To be pro-active does not mean we want to immediately shut down industry. What is uppermost in our minds is the refusal by our governments to properly regulate and immediately cap industrial pollutant emissions without too much dent in profits.

Pollution prevention control is not new and has been available for decades, however, the recidivist polluters continue to operate for maximum gains whilst we, the "masses" endeavour to find strategies to save the planet from their toxic emissions.

You express concern for those workers in developing countries. I remind you that workers and family members in these regions are now dropping every day from toxic air pollution, a result of the very industries we are discussing. Many more are succumbing to occupational and industrial diseases from being force-fed an air quality unfit for humans or animal.

However, I can speak with some authority - regulations in this nation are minimal and also of a third world standard, therefore I suggest we lobby immediately to clean up our own back yard first!

Steven,

This is a very good thread.

Your argument is logical, reasoned and rational.

We do have to move on from debating the science to the next stage, adapting to and mitigating GHG, risk management as you say.

The problems may be complex but we do have a window of opportunity to live in a more sustainable world.

How we can achieve this is embodied in the UN's Commission on Sustainable Development program and better defined under Agenda 21.

Businesses and industry are doing more to tackle climate change, as are research institutions, state/local governments, indigenous peoples and non-government organisations.

Unfortunately, federal governments (including Australia and the US) appear to be 'dragging the chain' primarily based on their political ideology and the influence of powerful vested interest groups.

Scientists have given an assessment; humanity must now deal with it.

We are told we have the technology to address the problems, all we really need is the will to act and the leaders with a vision.

Thank you for your kind words davsab.

There are two positions that drive me equally crazy. The first is the self-righteous greenies who pretend the science is certain and that there will be no costs in going green. In fact there will be enormous costs. For some it will be catastrophic.

The second position that drives me up the wall is those who use uncertainty as an excuse for inaction.

dickie,

If you wonder how people react to a perceived threat to their livelihoods remember the reaction of Tasmanian forestry workers to Latham's forestry policy.

Steven. You do exist in a closeted world.

The perceived threats to the Tasmanian forest group were nothing to the real job losses I know about.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of miners over the years have been called up, paid out and dismissed without notice. Many past miners had to abandon their homes to go to the metropolitan area for another job. No-one wanted to buy their homes.

Of course those terribly afflicted with industrial diseases such as silicosis, emphysema and asbestosis, from working for irresponsible pollutant companies, eventually had no income at all - just misery. Ho hum - that's life!

Then you had the closure in WA of the Albany woollen mills, the whaling industry, logging reductions, the very public closure of Ansett, and the on-going massive loss of workers' investments swallowed up by unsrupulous, greedy finance companies.

May I safely say most of those people experiencing job losses, past and present, obtained employment elsewhere? Or do you think they all resorted to the dole queues?

Have you even considered that the future "threats to people's livelihoods" may come from different sources in the future - threats of which they will have no control over
- a result of our government's inability to adopt or at least consider the "Precautionary Principle"?

Clearly you have ignored the scientific evidence I have included for debate in these posts as well as my tentative suggestions on how to obtain a workable, transitional period for implementation of non-pollutant industries.

And why don't you elaborate on your hyperbolics "gargantuan sums" and "enormous catastrophic costs." We require some substance to your declarations - we're all here to learn, Steven.

I object to your snide implication that I am a "self righteous greenie." I happen to be a conservative voter thanks!

If posters are "driving you up the wall", or "equally crazy", why do you bother?

Frankly I think you're just an old codger whose intention was to bang his own gums about nothing!

Steven/Dickie

Implicit in the two positions (of certainty and uncertainty) that drive Steven crazy is the solution to both – convergence.

It is essential that people (from all walks of life, with differing views, from different cultures and backgrounds) converge to address the one border that needs defending, the troposphere.

People have to realise that some problems humanity face are more important than the ideologies that drive those individuals or groups.

The solutions to our climate change problems should not degenerate into arguments about left or right, liberal or conservative, east or west, developed or developing, us or them, you or me.

Of course this is difficult; one only has to look at the dialogue between you both in a general forum such as this, or our political leaders’ debate in parliament, or the diatribe in the media (Andrew Bolt’s comments a case in point).

We all have a responsibility to do the right thing, and change can happen – but it has to be driven from the individual (whether you’re a miner, politician, nurse, mother, student, greenie, journalist, American, scientist, Christian or whatever).

I am sure the two of you have a lot in common (some very good points were given) and more so than you realise. However, the posts seem to have trivialised what really is important (convergence of views in dealing with climate change). Dickie’s latest post dramatises the differences and appears to have degenerated into a slanging match. This is not helpful to the debate; it is certainly not helpful to arriving at solutions.

Let’s move on.

I am particularly interested in Australia’s response to risk and how we should adapt to GW (in general) and contribute to a global action plan on mitigation of GHG (in particular).

To “muddy” the waters, our PM is now a “realist” and not a “sceptic” (hedging his bets, which is ok) and we still have to wait on the outcome of Australia’s “own Stern Report” commissioned by the opposition – something I believe should have been done years ago.

What do you think?

David