Interesting comment Freediver, though I'm not 100% sure if you meant it ironically. If not, then it's really case closed; either this is a science-based discussion, in which the accuracy of the predictions is paramount OR, as you tell us, it's all about politics; this is a "politics forum" to use your words. Is this really a Political matter with a group of people attempting to grab power via a (bogus?) scare campaign. Ah, those little Freudian Slips, freediver! Care to retract?

As for David's idea that assertions of impending doom have to be met with action regardless of their veracity (better to be safe than sorry), most people nodding in agreement would thus be strong supporters of GW Bush's invasion of Iraq since it was using the same rationale with a (seemingly) much more imminent danger. Or....am I missing something? Cheers.

Punter57

You are obviously a betting (wo)man.

Tell me, is there such a term in the racing vernacular as "hedging your bets"?

If so - would it not be prudent to think:

If a horse is 90-95% very likely to win, have a bet on it (is this hedging?)

Or do you require 100% certainty of winning before you placed your bet?

It's a balance between the chances of it happening and the cost, Davsab. If something seems unlikely (say 100-1 = 1%) you would not put very much on it (ie $1 will bring you $100 if correct). If it seems very likely (say 10-1 ON = ) you would need to bet $1000 to get the same $100 BUT with almost "certainty". The $1 I've allotted to Global Warming being human-induced has been wasted on my Internet connection reading articles on the subject. Wasted, because at a million to one I should've put only a ten thousandth of a single cent toward the task !

There are so many possible causes of death/injury/misfortune that any prudent person would prioritise them according to the actual possibility of them happening. Should I invest 40 bucks on a hard-hat lest a frozen turd falling from a passing jetliner crack my skull? Should I spend the money for a moat and drawbridge lest I be home-invaded? Should I buy an iron neck-protector lest dropbears truly exist? Maybe. Would you? If not, why not? Cheers.

Thanks punter57

The way I see GW then is this:

9 to 1 on (because that is what the experts are telling us)

Governments and businesses (including insurance companies) all over the world are adopting policies and strategies to address climate change, whether they believe in it or not – hedging their bets then.

So will I.

punter57: "Why should anyone give a stuff about what will happen (or not) in 50 years time?"

One assumes that this troll doesn't have children or grandchildren. Or one hopes s/he doesn't, for their sakes.

David,

Are you going to be the one to tell the third world that their promised development will never come because we’ve decided we don’t want to take any risk, no matter how small, on CO2 levels? While your in the midst of western comforts achieved using the processes you now want to stop? Real damage, unethical damage, can be done to millions across the world by overreacting to global warming. Luckily for you and me it won’t be us that cops the brunt of it.

The end of our species? Really?. Isn’t that called scaremongering.

Tell me do you support Nuclear Power? Because it seems to me that it fits the bill perfectly if you actually believe global warming is about to wipe out our species.