"J Rose" <>
Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:45:19 +0800
Hi all – This is from crikey.com.au
Makes sense to me!
Can the debate about the so-called global warming “swindle” ever be
resolved? Of course not. It’s far too scientific for most of us to
understand and it’s far too controversial to achieve a consensus.
Which is why the goalposts in this debate should be permanently shifted.
Let’s stop debating whether climate change is induced by humans and replace
it with a far more important -- and resolvable – question: can we afford not
This should be a debate about insurance, not about climate. There's now
enough evidence to raise sufficient doubts that the planet could be at risk
from greenhouse-induced climate change. Even if the actuarial risk is as low
as 10% (and it’s probably more like 50% or more) then surely every
individual, government and company would be crazy to do nothing.
The only “swindle” now would be if we didn’t take out an insurance policy
against the possibility of permanent damage to the environment, and we don’t
need scientific consensus for that – we just need 10% of scientists to
After all, even Rupert Murdoch – arch conservative and arch pragmatist -- is
arguing that we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 - Release Date: 12/07/2007
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering
takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely
a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way.
If you wish to get material removed from the archive or
have other queries about the archive e-mail
Andrew Taylor at this address: