Subject: GGWS
From: "Tim Jones" <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:37:44 +0000
Talk about silly! I can't see any basic logic in carrying on regardless. If
you were driving a car and the gauge said it was overheating you would have
a possible problem and maybe you would also have a hypothetical cause. Would
you just keep on driving it? We can all stop the vehicle and take our own
small actions. Why is continuing to defile the atmosphere counted as 'doing
nothing' anyway? If we really 'did nothing' the problem might start to slow

Annother point one thing that always seems to me to get missed in all this
is that we seem to be getting trapped into almost exclusively using global
warming to justify conservation measures - all well and good but let's also
get back to justifying conservation for its own sake - i.e. the legacy for
our descendants and the preservation of life forms in general.


From: "Tim Murphy" <>
To: "J Rose" <>,<>
Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] GGWS
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:10:32 +1000

>>>question: can we afford not to act?

A very silly question.

How are we meant to act? We have an possible problem with a hypothetical
cause. How the hell do we know what act to do - it may make things worse?.
What act(s) of Australia alone is going to give you a smidgeon of
If in doubt, do nothing, is always a pretty good rule.

It reminds me of the various Government ministers who pass useless and
counter productive laws, "because we must do something."

10% of scientist seems a very arbitrary rule. Most scientist are piss poor
about predicting the future.

Tim Murphy

-----Original Message-----
 Behalf Of J Rose
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: [Birding-Aus] (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
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
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
need scientific consensus for that ? we just need 10% of scientists to
confirm it.

After all, even Rupert Murdoch ? arch conservative and arch pragmatist --
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)

The next generation of Hotmail is here!


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