The Climategate specialists will probably tell us soon, the Vikings would have the Greenland Thule freigefurzt short ass thousand years ago.
The residual ice scraped the resourceful Norsemen then umkurvend using hockey sticks hand away.
Therefore, it may have then been no global warm phase.
The existing cooling also not the last eleven years commemorate the equally clever scientists at the University of East Anglia and the IPCC to be killed by computer-controlled giant flying slippers according to modern.
It would just be really the man-made disaster, when that did not work so well with the already planned global CO2 indulgences.
You can not seriously want it?
- Advertisement -
Tags: Climategate , IPCC , Climategate
Error as a risk?
So I see the whole discussion pragmatically and simply review the risks:
Risk 1: We reduce greenhouse gases, but the human impact on the global climate only marginally.
Consequence 1: We invest in technologies for energy production, conservation and other efficiency gains, a fair bit before the fossil fuels are running out. Everyone knows this change will be inevitable and already promoted by the growing demand for raw materials with stagnating production. In addition, the early conversion of the technologies essential value opportunities for Germany and the EU opened.
Risk 2: We continue to discuss and provide only fixed in retrospect, that we have our most stable climate actively tilted.
Consequence 2: Still incalculable, but in any case, socially and financially a huge challenge, with an open end.
So for me it is clear to what risk I decide. And besides, waste has never been intelligent and always shortsighted. There are enough historical examples of silly over-exploitation of their own livelihoods.
Ergo I do not understand what the skeptics of climate change are real. What pray tell, if YOU are wrong or we miss sheer counterpoint discussion technological connection in the future or just play air Roulette?
As I said, I am a pragmatist and not an ideologue.
Rudi Perplexed
They are even more ideological than the Catholic Church in Galileo's case!
Risk1: Everything written in the Bible is true literally and everyone goes to hell who does not believe in it. Then one can not talk people like Galileo and can write!
Risk2: Galileo was right and it's not true just everything literally. This would be far less serious than the consequences in case the first
Hold on tight: The Catholic Church in the time of Galileo was, however, only that this - as long as his theory was not proven - this theory only as a way mark may, what this despite not existing evidence would not. The church was so then in scientific discourse MUCH more than that which would make any "denier" prefer silence. By the way, Galileo was for years promoted by the Pope, as long as such he described his unproven theory - even though this did not fit into the concept of the Church! However, that the Church invented the university, they had then a much stronger intellectual claim, as many people of our time.
For your argument of development: What is needed signaled the market on price. When resources are scarce, then prices rise and it is economically attractive to develop alternative Produckte. This happens, however, in an economical way and not by silly and inefficient state control on all of our costs through debt. I'm very pragmatic.
@ "What is needed, signaled the market about the price"
Assuming that the price of the respective product includes unwelcome components. To calculate the price, eg an automobile or energy, can outside before their consequences and necessary infrastructure completely distributed and the course still costs at all - regardless of not consuming these products people (or those who consume much less of it). The "economy" is completely blind in the relationship. This "individualized" economics is a macroeconomic (now you have already global economic) meltdown - and the gap increases with each new Earthlings always dramatic. The system stinks.
Where is the personal freedom in the relationship? And how can you justify a blind system piety alone to make the knocking on the door crowds again and again put an end to guide current distribution wars and more safely to be accepted, the causes of which we already know today and we could mitigate? Come out of your tank Rudi. You are human, not the market.
Sorry Rudi - I mean Pantau.
lg
Andreas