like you said Deathray....

Qube??

Let me ask you this..OK ? Just for the sake of it... 

How could  'weather stations' set up to measure weather in the 17th Century  er yeah right...
accurately record a storm the size of Haiyann ?? 
C'est impossible!

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 2:51am:



So...to have happened it had to be recorded on current instruments....otherwise it never happened????

OK might not have been recorded with instruments, so may not ever have happened but just going on the numbers of deaths out of the 10 worst natural disasters since 1900, (excluding the earthquakes on the list) the worst was in 1931 (China floods 1-4 million dead). 3. Bangaladesh cyclone 1970 (500,000 dead) 6. China typhoon 1975 229,000. 8 China flood 1935 (145,000 dead) and 10 Bangaladesh cyclone 1991 (138,866 dead).
So number 10 was now 23 years ago so don't ya think we might be a bit overdue???

Emma wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 2:51am:



You also seem to be forgetting it is just a recent phenomenon that we had much idea as to what was happening "all over the world".

To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say -
1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions!

2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you -
a) don't believe that the cause is Human related?
b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all? 
c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it?
If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons?
If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not taking whatever Mitigating actions we can? 

3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken.
So, do you -
a) Generally not believe what scientists say?
b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying?
c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"?
If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons?
If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not accepting/believing that the Scientific Consensus is correct? 

My take on your questions:


perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:


With respect, this issue is not about activists & I have no doubt that some of that is going happening, on both sides of the "discussion".

The central issues are -
1) Do we believe the information put up by the vast majority of scientists, particularly those who are experts in that particular area of science and I think we are obliged to, otherwise we would disregard all expert scientific information & quickly revert to the dark ages?
2) Does the scientific & anecdotal evidence substantially back up, what those best experts are saying and it certainly & seems to be substantially heading in those directions, with increasingly ferocious storms, Droughts & disappearing Ice Caps?
3) So If, as I do, we agree that the best available expert information, then we need to consider what the likely outcomes may be, IF the experts are correct and if those outcomes are sufficiently nasty, as is the case, then we need to employ any & all measures to try to avoid the worst of those likely outcomes!

Given the dire outcomes suggested by the experts, we can not wait, as it will then be far too late & it may already be so. Therefore, we must move, heaven (if there be any such thing) & EARTH & we should leave no stone unturned, until we know we have given it our best shot, to try to secure a reasonable future for, for our sons & daughters, our grand children and indeed future generations & a future for humanity?     

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:



Perceptions Now.. you present the only RATIONAL path that we humans must follow.. given the situation of climate change.

It is senseless to argue against it...  and besides ALL THAT...

whatever measures we take,.. to lessen our impact on our only home...  can only be GOOD... even if ?  this environmental disaster, as predicted, does not prove out.

No effort we make is wasted.. every single thing we do the lessen our 'footprint'  must be GOOD.

Some might argue,, ooh ooh  what about the job losses.. and the loss of profits..??  if we pursue renewable energy.. at the expense of fossil fuels.??  What ??

This is a whole new frontier.. this  'renewable energy concept '..  if we'd just ditch the old paradigms..  the old world way of doing things.. and embrace the new... the opportunities are ,  quite literally,..limitless.