Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
All you hear on Macquarie Radio is Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Chris Smith and the other clones, calling climate change a hoax. If they're lying they should be locked up. If it's a clique of (global warming) Academics lying, they should be locked up. It's that serious.
If they are lying then people shouldn't listen to them.
My fourth policy might be a Royal Commission into bias in the Media. Last week Jones and Hadley were "full throttle" trying to get the Libs over the line in the Longman by-election. This morning Jones has been as bitter as Vinegar due to the loss, it's vicious.
My fourth policy might be a Royal Commission into bias in the Media. Last week Jones and Hadley were "full throttle" trying to get the Libs over the line in the Longman by-election. This morning Jones has been as bitter as Vinegar due to the loss, it's vicious. He keeps saying "we" when referring to the Liberals, constantly.
I now have the ABC back on, for a bit.
Analayis of the Polar Vortex and CC.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-polar-vortex-climate-change-and-beast-from-the-east
But the potential link between the climate change, the polar vortex and mid-latitude weather is a complicated, uncertain and – at times – contentious one.
"But the potential link between the climate change, the polar vortex and mid-latitude weather is a complicated, uncertain and – at times – contentious one."
Is that supposed to undermine the reality of world wide climate change?
Or should we just wait until it is absolutely certain we are destablishing our benign climate before considering any action. ?
I'll simply note that there is no business decision ever made by anyone that involved absolute certainty as to the outcome.Or should we just wait until it is absolutely certain
I'll simply note that there is no business decision ever made by anyone that involved absolute certainty as to the outcome.
Even a governent owned monopoly will have some risk somewhere and at the other end uncertainty is the very nature of any privately owned business operating in a competitive market (and that's most businesses).
Climate change is uncertain but it's considerably more certain than the basis of a great many other decisions.
For a business to last successfully for more than five years, there's a fairly high importance of risk assessment, experience and a rather low gamble factor. It's when an organisation spreads its decision making process to please the mono task rank and file that hard to kill camels get born.
Agreed.For a business to last successfully for more than five years, there's a fairly high importance of risk assessment, experience and a rather low gamble factor.
A lot of gobbly gook there Tisme !?
...
Agreed.
Apply standard business risk management approaches to CO2 and it's hard to find a way that doesn't trigger the "senior management must be immediately informed" clause that's in most risk assessments somewhere for that moment when someone realises they and/or the company really are in very serious trouble.
Thankfully I've only ever needed to follow that policy once in my working life thus far, and I wasn't the cause simply the one who first observed the situation, but most businesses have it somewhere.
CO2 would fall into that category due to consequence alone, there being no need to accurately determine probability in order to reach that conclusion since if consequence is drastic enough then even a relatively low probability still puts it in the red zone.
Does anyone else have a clue what Tisme is sprouting ? If I thought his first business observations were goobly gook this latest spiel is " goobly gook squared".
So I understand Tisme is saying that businesses (his perhaps ?) are leaders in "setting standards" for energy efficiency in electronic equipment.
Great. That is at least a .5% contribution to the overall problem of drastically reducing emissions. But if anyone thinks that is any more than a tiny part of what needs to be done they are in denial. And it doesn't even touch the issues of dealing with the consequences of CC now and into the near term future.
Unfortunately I think climate change is now feeding on itself.
The fires around the world as a result of CC are now releasing tonnes more CO2, which creates more warming, which creates more fires etc.
So really if that cycle continues I think we are stuffed. I don't really see a way out. Planting more trees would be counter productive if they too catch fire and create more CO2.
So my answer to the topic heading, I'm sorry to say is YES.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?