Skip to comments.Climate change: the risk of waiting for proof (barf alert)
Posted on 12/14/2011 5:36:29 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB
Should we act on climate change now or wait? While an international majority of scientists believes climate change is real, a minority of scientists and majority of politicians want you to wait. After all, behavior change should not be mandated or government regulated - especially without proof.
UBS Wealth Management, a financial services company working with high/ultra high net worth clients, published a comprehensive report to its investors in January of 2007 titled "Climate Change: Beyond Whether." Its findings suggest we can follow one of three paths: 1) Take a wait-and-see approach 2) Act now and risk investment if nothing happens or 3) Act now and gain the reward of planning for change. The 106 pages detail the science of climate change, the economics of climate change, global policy and regulatory environment, and investment risks and opportunities.
Wait and see? If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is right, how will you, your house, your homeowners' insurance, your community, and your business/employer/job fare if we continue to experience a rise in extreme weather events like tornadoes, floods and hail?
Act now and risk investment if nothing happens? According to the GSA (General Services Administration) website, the "GSA will eliminate its impact on the natural environment and use its government-wide influence to reduce environmental impact of the federal government." GSA is the independent arm of the U.S. government that purchases products and services, owns and leases office space, and runs fleet vehicles for all federal agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at presspubs.com ...
Yeah, it's what sane people call WEATHER!
I’m still trying to figure out how global warming will melt enough ice to raise the seas over the entire planet two feet.
Let’s fire Obama NOW, because the risk of waiting for “proof” that he’s destroying America is TOO HIGH!
A major principle of the enviro movement is the Precautionary Principle, which is that if there is a chance of a change in policy causing harm, you should not make that change until you have proven the harm won’t occur.
Here the writer is recognizing that refusing to make a change may also have a cost, something they usually reject.
What if, the planet is not warming. What if it is actually going to cool, just like it has done in the past. What if you leave humanity completely unprepared for the cooling ? Progressives never ever stop to contemplate that they could be flat out wrong. Always progressing forward with no self reflection. Whatever makes them feel good, apparently.
I had written her a note on her super sweet website, but didn’t want to start a cat fight. Mentioned the “fact” that Minnesota was under a glacier until the industrial revolution, right?
Couldn’t do it. According to my psych texts, she won’t listen anyway.
Psych texts are very liberal and the global warming, population control and pollution groups use social psychology to their advantage.
Why don’t we just start tossing virgins into volcanos to placate Goddess Gaia?
I mean, it might be too late if we wait.
If only we had some sort of “Environmental Solutions Agency”. /s
She looks like Cherie Blair. Thinks like her too.
With this logic we should all begin chemotherapy treatments for cancer.
Only government can fix the climate and only government knows what the right temperature for the planet is. Do I need sarcasm tags?
“The co author of Newt’s first global warming book and one of the co authors of his upcoming global warming books, (Terry Maple) lists “environmental psychology” as one of his specialties.”
Makes me want to get a conservative social psychologist (if there is such a person) to look at Newt’s campaign and see if it isn’t just applications of getting sheople to vote for him. As a matter of fact his NON-aggressive responses in the beginning were very “cooperative” a BIG part of social psychology vs being competitive.
No money saved. Nice government scam we've let happen.
The Reptilians from Epsilon Eridani might invade with their death rays and the risk of not spending 150% of Earth’s GDP to prepare for the Invasion is simply not worth it.
Katherine Hayhoe is another co author of the book. She also authored “A climate for change”. She pushes climate change on traditional skeptics “Christians”.
LOL!! Good luck finding one!!
Ahh yes, you see it's not the lack of evidence which is important, it is the seriousness off the claim. (to paraphrase Limbaugh)