Unthreaded
The actual percentage odds of your house burning down is around 0.083% (insurance calculation). Personally I don't buy insurance against fire (it's included anyway I suppose) as burglary has to be a higher risk!
Dave_G
@Johanna your analogy is wrong I think.
There could be a 60% of climate catastrophe ..and then it would be worth preventative measures if they are much cheaper than the consequences *
However the salesmen for that 60% claim would have to come up with something better than their models which have almost been 100% wrong uptil now. And anyway they have mislead us so far so why trust them in the future.
* geoengineering after is looking cheap these days if we can believe it's so easy to change climate with CFCs etc.
stewgreen
Cameron said:
"if I said to you there's a 60% chance your house might burn down do you want to take out some insurance."
-----------------------------------------
If there was a 60% chance that your house would burn down, it would be uninsurable.
How do they get away with this nonsense?
johanna
Never heard Cameron actually state his position on climate change before. From today's Telegraph, Cameron in Colombo:
'Mr Cameron said governments should listen to scientists who say man-made climate change is to blame and take out an "insurance policy". "There is no doubt there have been an increasing number of severe weather events in recent years", the Prime Minister said. "And I'm not a scientist but it always seems to me one of the strongest arguments about climate change is, even if you're only 90%certain or 80% certain or 70% certain, if I said to you there's a 60%chance your house might burn down do you want to take out some insurance. I think we should think about climate change like that. Scientists are giving us a very certain message . Even if you're less than certain than the scientists it makes sense to act both interns of trying to prevent and mitigate……(and he goes on)".
Looks like he has been too busy to notice what has actually been going on with the science.
This says to me:
1. Don't expect much from the green taxes review.
2. Don't vote conservative, if you are looking for a change and sensible approach to energy policy.
miket
I've been having tremendous fun at Keith Kloor's:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/11/12/new-normal-climate-ambulance-chasing/
He's an idiot. And so are his pals. Feel free to join in. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
If you want to see where CAGW belief goes when reality fails to cooperate, then this is the venue for you.
Enjoy!
James Evans
stew, thanks for the "eco-house" links. It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Political correctness + lavish subsidies attract scammers and wankers like moths to a flame. The Rudd government's "free" home insulation program generated hundreds of instant home insulation companies who knew nothing about the business. Unfortunately, four people died, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money being wasted.
The "sustainable housing" (whatever that means) scam will run and run - and taxpayers will be funding almost all of it.
johanna
You may be bothered by having to type the 'captcha' boxes before a post here. If you are altruistic then you will feel that you are not wasting your time after you see this TED talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQl6jUjFjp4
Warning: not climate related.
ssat
Amusing article on Spanish Solar ....
The sun tax in action.
tomo
COIN, CaCC, RisingTide (Halls of Shame) & Guardian's George Marshall - seems to have forgotten he started the climate enemies narratives he warns against
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28933937
Barry Woods
A partial transcript of BBC1's Question Time from Thursday, with Ed Davey and Nigel Lawson, is now here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20131114_qt