The Economic Argument Against Sitting On Our Hands

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2

"Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change — and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks. While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions because of their potential magnitude.
The scientific community is all but unanimous in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat. According to Gallup, nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Still, for many people, the effects of climate change seem like a future problem — something that falls by the wayside as we tackle what seem like more immediate crises." Robert Rubin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin

[nailer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2

"Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change — and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks. While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions because of their potential magnitude.
The scientific community is all but unanimous in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat. According to Gallup, nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Still, for many people, the effects of climate change seem like a future problem — something that falls by the wayside as we tackle what seem like more immediate crises." Robert Rubin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin

This would be the never popular known unknown variable. Not as difficult as the unknown unknown, but a bear nonetheless.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

This would be the never popular known unknown variable. Not as difficult as the unknown unknown, but a bear nonetheless.

Wasn't there a study or two by DOD about this? Maybe you can shed some light there Bob?

[mpholland]

I guess I am in the 40%. I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming. Significant contributors I can go along with, but not the cause. I also don't believe anything our 5% of the worlds population does will alter it significantly for the better unless the rest of the world jumps on board.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I guess I am in the 40%. I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming. Significant contributors I can go along with, but not the cause. I also don't believe anything our 5% of the worlds population does will alter it significantly for the better unless the rest of the world jumps on board.

I believe the overwhelming majority of scientists.

You know, the people that know a helluva lot more about it than me or you.

I don't know what percent that puts me in.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Wasn't there a study or two by DOD about this? Maybe you can shed some light there Bob?

I haven't read any DOD documents in almost 7 years (dancing banana). IIRC I never came across one that discussed how Global Warming would impact military operations. I did participate in meetings where the impact of known unknowns on planning was discussed, but I'm unable to name a DOD document that discusses this.

I've no doubt that DOD is at a minimum considering how Global Warming will impact military operations from a long-term perspective. My last report (GAO's report that is) was focused on NORTHCOM's operations and contingency planning, and its ability to execute these plans. We analyzed every plan and none of mine mentioned Global Warming. No one else mentioned that the plans they reviewed touch on this, and if Global Warming had been mentioned we would have talked about it.

[piece-itpete]

If the sea level is going up I think we need to look at barriers/relocation.

Current models and actual measurable data show that, for now at least, 97% of climate change scientists are wrong.

Pete

[nailer]

Three 3 percenter's analysis?

Both groups say the same thing: Our models and analyses show we are right.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

If the sea level is going up I think we need to look at barriers/relocation.

Current models and actual measurable data show that, for now at least, 97% of climate change scientists are wrong.

Pete

It's mathematically possible that 97% of the worlds most imminent scientists are wrong and that the 3% that have whored themselves out to big corporate interests are right, but I kinda fucken doubt it.

[piece-itpete]

The models have been off for 20 years and don't work backwards.

That's 97% of scientists that wrote about human caused global warming, not 97% of all scientists.

Pete