Why Is It So Easy to Save the Banks - " but So Hard to Save the Biosphere?

Dec 18, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Common Dreams

Nicholas Stern estimated that capping climate change would cost around 1% of global GDP, while sitting back and letting it hit us would cost between 5 and 20%. One per cent of GDP is, at the moment , $630bn. By March 2009, Bloomberg has revealed , the US Federal Reserve had committed $7.77 trillion to the banks.

Comments
21 - 37 of 37 Comments Last updated Jan 15, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are no astronomical, geographical or paleontology mitigation theory, purely descriptive science doesn't need experimental evidence but any policy, plan, procedure, appliance or intervention must be tested if it's based on science. The FDA uses experimental tests for medicine, why a lower standard when the prescription of for the entire planet?
My only objection to climate change mitigation is the lack of experimental test; show me one that demonstrates feasibility and I'll change my opinion.
What a joke. You will NEVER change your opinion, because your opinion on climate is purely an extension of your deeply held political views, as received from St. Limbaugh of Oxycontin.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

My opposition to climate change mitigation is based on the science, there's never been an experimental test to show it's feasible, how much it would cost or how much good it will do. You may insult all you like, but until you cite even one single experiment that shows man can change the climate; I'm a skeptic.

Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
My opposition to climate change mitigation is based on the science, there's never been an experimental test to show it's feasible, how much it would cost or how much good it will do. You may insult all you like, but until you cite even one single experiment that shows man can change the climate; I'm a skeptic.
Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
I didn't insult you, Brian; I insulted Limbaugh. Is that too close to home for you?

And you are not a skeptic. You are a denier--to the core.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
My opposition to climate change mitigation is based on the science,
Do you mean your rejection of the science, or that you don't understand it?
Brian_G wrote:
there's never been an experimental test to show it's feasible,
So we enter an endless loop of denial where lack of prior experience with GHG gas reductions is used to deny the need for GHG reductions? I wouldn't use the term 'climate change mitigation' as this is wide open to interpretation and there are several instances where climate change mitigation has been tested in the field, such as reforestation projects in semi-deserts.
Brian_G wrote:
how much it would cost or how much good it will do.
The cost/benefit is something that is determined once you have selected a method. Your rejection of ANY method is bogus.
Brian_G wrote:
You may insult all you like, but until you cite even one single experiment that shows man can change the climate; I'm a skeptic.
Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
Clearly Northie has your number.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Do you mean your rejection of the science, or that you don't understand it?
Do you understand science?
If so, explain CO2 as a thermal pollutant?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Clearly Northie has your number.
And I have yours, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
<quoted text>Do you understand science?
Better than most, I find. But as with everyone else, including top level researchers, there are huge areas of science I do *not* understand so your question is a bit silly. Who knows ALL of science??
Earthling-1 wrote:
If so, explain CO2 as a thermal pollutant
Start with the definition of the greenhouse effect. Or are you confused by the definition of 'pollution'?
Earthling-1 wrote:
And I have yours, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
You still have not shown ONE single fact that rebutts my memory of 1960's Ontario (100 miles from the US border so relatively untouched by Americanisms).

But never let facts deter you. And that is all it is. One data point. Lots of other places where they spelled it your way, and I have pointed out that this 'irregularity' is becoming common because of the dominance of the US in spell checkers.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Holy shit! he addressed the questions.

I don't care at all about forty/fourty but CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a very necessary component of the atmosphere and as far as green plants, photosynthesis and agriculture are concerned more is better.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Steve Case wrote:
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a very necessary component of the atmosphere and as far as green plants, photosynthesis and agriculture are concerned more is better.
Tell that to the Russians or Aussies who lost last year's wheat crops to extreme heat waves and floods. Or tell it to British Columbians whose central forests have been decimated by northward invasions of insects. Or the people of Brazil, where the greatest concentration of plant life on Earth has been parched by repeated record droughts.

As far as green plants, forests and agriculture are concerned, droughts, floods and erratic temperatures are problems.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Better than most, I find.
I see, would that be in a room full of scientists or a room full of manual labourers?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
But as with everyone else, including top level researchers, there are huge areas of science I do *not* understand so your question is a bit silly. Who knows ALL of science??
No one, so why did you bother to waste time with the obvious?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Start with the definition of the greenhouse effect. Or are you confused by the definition of 'pollution'?
The question is invalid are you asking about the greenhouse effect or pollution?
Your comment that CO2 is a thermal pollutant, "a greenhouse gas causing 'thermal pollution' of the planet" was unscientific, misleading and incorrect.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
You still have not shown ONE single fact that rebutts my memory of 1960's Ontario (100 miles from the US border so relatively untouched by Americanisms).
You're right, I've "shown" you dozens of facts that you either ignore or write off.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
But never let facts deter you. And that is all it is. One data point. Lots of other places where they spelled it your way, and I have pointed out that this 'irregularity' is becoming common because of the dominance of the US in spell checkers.
So why are you unable to find one citation that you're right about the spelling anywhere, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Steve Case wrote:
Holy shit! he addressed the questions.
Half heartedly, but yes, he tried.
Steve Case wrote:
I don't care at all about forty/fourty but CO2 is not a pollutant.
My pint is, it's not a "thermal pollutant," nor does it cause, "'thermal pollution' of the planet."
Steve Case wrote:
It's a very necessary component of the atmosphere and as far as green plants, photosynthesis and agriculture are concerned more is better.
That's heresy.
ֿ

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Point, not pint.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
You still have not shown ONE single fact that rebutts my memory of 1960's Ontario (100 miles from the US border so relatively untouched by Americanisms).
We're not talking about your memory of Ontario or its location, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
The question is specifically about the spelling of the number 40 in English for over 200 years.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
But never let facts deter you.
I certainly won't.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
And that is all it is. One data point.
Are you that confused?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Lots of other places where they spelled it your way
Very true, to be more precise, everywhere in the English speaking world.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
and I have pointed out that this 'irregularity'
How can the correct spelling be an irregularity?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
is becoming common because of the dominance of the US in spell checkers.
Forty was spelt thus before US spell checkers were even dreamt of.
It's way past time you admitted your spelling is lousy, you have a touch of dyslexia and fat fingers, all in all, not conducive to good spelling and not a sound place to argue about the English language from.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:
I didn't insult you, Brian; I insulted Limbaugh. Is that too close to home for you? And you are not a skeptic. You are a denier--to the core.
I didn't say "me", I said:

You may insult all you like, but until you cite even one single experiment that shows man can change the climate; I'm a skeptic.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
... I wouldn't use the term 'climate change mitigation' as this is wide open to interpretation and there are several instances where climate change mitigation has been tested in the field, such as reforestation projects in semi-deserts...
Waiting for that citation.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jan 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm a skeptic.
"Skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views."
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html

So, Limbaugh-trusting Santorum voter, got any preconceived views that you're trying to protect?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nauseous wrote:
"Skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth.
That lets you out then.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jan 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Science uses experiments to test theory. Prototypes are used to develop technology. Don't blame skeptics if you don't have a compelling demonstration that shows any man made global climate change; go back to the science.

It might be man's CO2 emissions are too insignificant to cause global climate change. Other unknown factors might be far more important. I don't know much about science but I've heard of the scientific method:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Durban, South Africa Discussions

Search the Durban, South Africa Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Ngifuna ipipi bo (Jan '14) 9 hr Precious 78
Durban streets 'cleaned' of homeless 12 hr Mr fixit 2
sex forum (May '08) Sun Deezo 58
asbhebhane (Nov '13) Sun Mthondosokiwe Dbn twn 31
Phone theft syndicate arrested Jul 27 Arse 1
Lookin for sugardaddy in durban (Jan '14) Jul 26 Yosh 16
Sugar baby needs a Sugar daddy..mcwaaah (Oct '13) Jul 26 mbali 31
•••
•••