greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 21
st, 2012 at 1:33am:
MOTR wrote on Nov 21
st, 2012 at 1:07am:
You've made it abundantly clear you don't think there is enough credible evidence to support the AGW hypothesis, that is clearly not the position held by the vast majority of scientists that work in the field. There is not a single scientific organisation that supports your position, greggery, yet there are well over a hundred that have come out in support of the AGW hypothesis.
And what is your point?
Seriously? What
exactly is your point?
What is it that worries you so much about someone having a different point of view?
Why do you AGW alarmists feel that it's so necessary for everyone in the world to think the same way that you do?
Because the risks are high and we are not dong enough to reduce those risks. Now you can call me an alarmist if you like, but I'm not the only one ringing alarms. Here are some other alarmists in the business of managing risks.
Quote:The World Bank yesterday released a report prepared by the Potsdam Institute spelling out what the world is likely to experience if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius. The World Bank declares that 4 degrees is looking increasingly likely by the end of the century without some serious policy changes by governments globally.
The report essentially attempts to summarise much of the research literature that has built up since the 2007 fourth IPCC Assessment Report and puts it in the context of the path we’re on unless we start taking this problem seriously.
In short it does not make for pleasant reading. World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim says, “it is my hope that this report shocks us into action,” as he believes, “a 4 degree world can, and must, be avoided.”
For the World Bank, who’s primary purpose is to help the impoverished nations out of poverty, “the lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development.”
Quote:A 2010 US Defense Department review identified climate change and energy security as "prominent military vulnerabilities," noting that climate change in particular is an "accelerant of instability and conflict." It was the first time the Pentagon addressed climate in a comprehensive planning document.
A subsequent assessment by the National Research Council found that even moderate climate shifts will impact Navy operations. Sea-level rise and more severe storm surges will hit coastal military bases, and marine forces could also face more work in responding to an increase in humanitarian crises following disasters. The opening of the Arctic as sea ice disappears will likely require more patrols in harsh conditions as nations and industry interests are expected to vie for control of new trade routes and energy resources.
Quote:Simon Young at insurance consultancy Caribbean Risk Managers says the area's too exposed, too low-lying.
Simon Young: Storm surge at the coast is the big issue. The general feeling is that it's going to get worse as the oceans warm up. The potential for bigger, more aggressive hurricanes increases, as well as sea level rise. And those two factors together increase the storm surge hazard.
Young says that risk is also rising on the east coast of the U.S. More broadly, he says for the insurance sector, the basic debate over climate change ended years ago.
Young: The insurance industry has accepted absolutely that climate change is real. There is no debate either at the management level or at the technical level as to whether climate change is going to have an impact on their industry.
Forum
Pages: 
Will Huricane Sandy force the world to act on co2? (Read 13085 times)
