leejo

Holy Christ I didn't know that Global Warming could inconvenience a World Cup skiing event, destroy (melt snow) a polar bear's habitat, or melt snow on top of Kilimanjaro. That's gotta be worth keeping a few billion people in poverty and spending at least a few trillion US $ to fix.

I think you may want to read the bit about economists agreeing on climate change more carefully. It doesn't seem to support your position very well. "Economists Agree On Global Warming: Yawn" might be a better title.

Steeler

Conservation and climate science is keeping billions of people in poverty? News to me. Oh, the free market could do such wonderful, big-hearted humanitarian things, if only people would stop putting obstacles in its way!

__________________

leejo

Conservation and climate science are a long way from what Global Warming alarmists propose we do to "solve" this "problem".

And yes, free markets do wonderful big-hearted humanitarian things. Vastly more so than any other force on earth.

icky

Ha! That IS funny.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

Diceman

Since this is the topic that doesn't die here, I thought I'd mention that CBC's Fifth Estate did a story recently, peripherally on climate change, but more focused on the denial thereof.

It's shy of an hour long, and I doubt very much that it'll change anyone's mind, but I post it for your review anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?denial

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

xTYBALTx

I thought I was the only one who found those humorous!

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

xTYBALTx

I am watching this right now, and love one of the first lines from the show:

Sounds good so far!

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Kerostasis

As near as I can tell, what it really says is "Economists DONT agree on Global Warming". I don't where the reporter got the idea that they all agreed...oh thats right! He took an average! He averaged the responses of all of his economists to produce the "average" economist response of a 2% GDP hit due to Global Warming, which means I guess they all agreed with the average.

Note that he didn't even ASK them whether Global Warming was likely to happen or not, just whether or not it would be likely to hurt our economy if left unchecked. And he found slightly more said "no" than "yes".

So...that article is completely out of place in your list, Mosely. But don't worry, you can still complain about catastrophic events like skiing competitions being rained out.

__________________

AMosely

How did that article get in there? And why are you guys even bothering to read these ridiculous assertions?

And where was I complaining about anything in this thread? How do you know I haven't changed my mind on all this? I have changed my mind on one thing - trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs on this matter. Like many matters of imporatance, the issue has been put through the spin cycle so many times that the average person reacts to it on instinct as the de-evolution of humankind rolls on.

Speaking of evolution - and proof thereof - anyone catch this story?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss

icky

Well it is unfortunate that people look at extremely short-term weather patterns and declare that they are evidence of trends. There is so much intentionally and unintentionally bad science surrounding this issue that it is impossible to cut through to the truth.

And btw, regard anything you see from CBC with a healthy dose of skepticism. They are the Canadian Biased-reporting Corporation, and they don't air anything which doesn't fit their agenda.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

xTYBALTx

Yeah, I had to turn it off after a couple of minutes. I did love that line though, so unintentionally ironic.

I, too, can't believe that anyone can cite a 'warmer than average' early winter as evidence of what is purported to be a 1.5*C to 6*C warming over the course of 100 years. It's as if people think that any weather which deviates from the mathematical average were unusual. I just don't get it.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

AMosely

I wish I could find a video of this. I had no idea (but was not surprised) that Mike Meyers could do a fantastic Carl Sagan.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/90/90hglobal.phtml

Lucky Shot

This last year was light on nasty weather. In fact, it was the easiest on insurers in 10 years and 3rd cheapest in 20. I sense a trend!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...21/cnins21.xml

Lucky Shot

xTYBALTx

We must stop 'Global Safe-ing!'

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

icky

LOL... I am a real insurance company hater, and this is why:
"Lloyd's reported a loss of £103m for 2005, its first loss since 2001, compared with a profit of £1.3bn the year before. It said that 2005 had cost the insurance industry far more than the September 11 terror attacks in 2001."

People say that insurance companies take risks and therefore deserve to make profits. I agree. Now explain to me how the worst year in more than 30 years costs them less than 8% of their annual profit? It doesn't sound very risky to me. It sounds like a big money-growing tree.

Oh no, but imagine if TWO of those years happened consecutively! That would surely hurt! Well, we know very well that these guys keep a few bucks in the bank, so they'll get by.

Anyhoo... just had to let that out.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!