Climate change risk to?

To: <>
Subject: Climate change risk to?
From: "Colin Driscoll" <>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:11:41 +1000
My turn on the soapbox!

It is not the planet that is at risk here- the planet will go on just as it
did after the era of the dinosaurs or the ice age for example. It is humans
that are at risk and that is where the focus should be. A species is at risk
from its own actions in much the same way as any other population explosion
in nature is brought back into balance- the planet has its own remedial
measures available and a lot of time and patience. 

If the popular discussion about the impacts of climate change were to be
directed at saving humanity then more would likely sit up and listen. If the
discussion revolves around the noble ideal of saving the planet then that is
at least one step removed from having a direct impact on 'me'.

Of course if it were proven that there was once a thriving global ecosystem
on Mars then I would have to rethink!

Pretty cold winter this year, wonder if the promised ice-age of the 70's is
sneaking up on us?

Meanwhile happy birding....that is what we do here isn't it?

Colin Driscoll

-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of J Rose
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: (no subject)

Hi all - This is from


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
to act?

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
confirm it.

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
4:08 PM

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)


To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

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: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU