Utter insanity: spending $160b to cut the temperature by 0.00005 degrees

[nero_bolt]

What is the TRUE cost of climate change? Is stopping it early really the cheapest plan in the long run? 50 to 1 explores the costs of stopping climate change vs adapting to it as and if it’s required, and uncovers a simple truth; it’s 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to simply ADAPT to it as and if required.

Topher works out that Labor’s global warming policy would after 10 years cut the world’s temperature by 0.00005 degrees at a cost of $160 billion.

The global warming faith has robbed our politicians of all reason.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TophersUnpopularView?feature=watch  

[***super_nova***]

i am not going to argue with the 0.000000005, but I think there are too many 0. 

We probably should stop using the term "global warming", although accurate many people cannot comprehend that only small increase in AVERAGE temperatures will cause havoc with our weather.  The reason is that it will make our weather more extreme.  That means harsher winters and hotter summers, worse droughts and heavier rainfalls with severe storms, which all will cause significant damage to infrastructure and crops.  The cost of doing nothing is going to far outstrip the cost of taking real measures NOW.  Longer we leave it, more expensive it will get. 

[the_hawk*]

---

@monman12 wrote:

LL, the figure is a load of codswallop but receives attention. This also is nonsense:

TH "Just stopping cutting down the old growth rain forest would have a bigger effect, but governments cant make money from that "

Felling trees is a carbon neutral process.

---

John it has little to do with carbon, the carbon is a by benifit, its more abouit the forests removal changes weather patterns, stange how no one has joined the dots with this and climate changes 

[spotweldersfriend]

That malarkey comment wasn't aimed at you John.I wish they'd have all these comments laid out in chronological order.

[lakeland27]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

yes really

do a little research on how rain forest effect weather patterns and climate

---

 i think at this point we can agree to disagree hawk. its not as if we will make any headway is it

---

non what so ever because you are wrong and only want to hear what some gov spin person has told you to believe to justify a carbon tax

---

no, i want a government that acts because i accept the science. i was aware of it before anyone had heard of kevin rudd thanks.

[***super_nova***]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

---

John it has little to do with carbon, the carbon is a by benifit, its more abouit the forests removal changes weather patterns, stange how no one has joined the dots with this and climate changes 

---

That is not true.  It is a well understood that moist air blowing from the ocean will develop into rain when it hits forested area.  It is part of the vicious circle, nothing much growth in desert because there is not enough water, and there is not enough rain because nothing is growing there. 

But CO2 and other pollutants are responsible for the "greenhouse effect", just planting some trees is not going to fix that, even if we could cover whole of Australia in trees.  That would just be fueling the firestorms.  The fires of 2009 Black Saturday were of unprecedented severity.  I lived in the fire affected area in 1983, and bad as that was in few weeks after some rain everything was sprouting again.  After the 2009 I could not face to go to Marysville for several years; when finally some 3 years later we did go up there I was astonished that some of the hills were still black; there was green grass and some new plants sprouting, but the trees were dead.  And is likely only going to get worse. 

[crystal-gems]

The actual costing a mere $10 per week per family per week  to help save the environment for our children and their children..

You may not care about the environment NW....but most of us are.

[*mrgrizz*]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

i am not going to argue with the 0.000000005, but I think there are too many 0. 

We probably should stop using the term "global warming", although accurate many people cannot comprehend that only small increase in AVERAGE temperatures will cause havoc with our weather.  The reason is that it will make our weather more extreme.  That means harsher winters and hotter summers, worse droughts and heavier rainfalls with severe storms, which all will cause significant damage to infrastructure and crops.  The cost of doing nothing is going to far outstrip the cost of taking real measures NOW.  Longer we leave it, more expensive it will get. 

---

look at some of those dates. what were they blaming 100+ years ago when some of them were recorded?

[***super_nova***]

---

@*mrgrizz* wrote:

---

---

look at some of those dates. what were they blaming 100+ years ago when some of them were recorded?

---

They are just showing the previous record that has been broken.  The point is that 123 records, some that stood for 100 years have been broken in just the one year = 2012 -13

[*mrgrizz*]

or maybe there is a 100 year cycle

they do call them once in a hundred year floods