On Thu, April 24, 2014 12:55 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:27:40 Lev Lafayette wrote:
Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct.
When discussing these things we should consider the consequences of being wrong.
Well yes, that's basic risk analysis; probability multiplied by cost is impact risk.
What happens if we are wrong about climate change and we reduce coal use anyway? Well we have less pollution in the air, lower cancer rates, less destruction of farmland (mines are big), and fewer injuries and deaths in mining.
Pro-forma, the denier crowd would argue that acting as if global warming was real and a problem results in lower economic growth, unemployment etc. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt