0 members (),
707
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Global warming could cut the world's annual economic output by as much as 20%, an influential report by Sir Nicholas Stern is expected to say. While that is a worst case scenario, the report claims that at the very best the cost of tackling global warming would be 1% of annual economic output. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6093396.stm
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
another news story from the global warming alarmist bbc. what do you expect from them, ballanced reporting?
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
dehammer wrote: "another news story from the global warming alarmist bbc. what do you expect from them, ballanced reporting?"
You mean like that provided by Fox News? Of course not. Had you read the story you might have found the following:
"According to BBC business correspondent Hugh Pym, the report will carry weight because Sir Nicholas, a former World Bank economist, is seen as a neutral figure."
The BBC is a news organization: They carried the story. That they carried it does not discount the fact that the report was writen by someone considered neutral by many.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310 |
G'day,
Another useless thread that is NOT science.
Economic analysis of what might happen is a bit like saying that a third world war will cost 3% of annual world economic input. It may be accurate in the sense that the economic theories support it but it demonstrates nothing to do with science. This is one thread that should not even be in this section of the forum.
Economics arguments about what might happen with global warming are about as much to do with the science of climate change as the horoscope page of your local paper.
Worse, this is a news story about what a government report, commissioned to see what economic impacts global warming might have, that has not even been released. It is just speculation about what it is expected to say. That really is pushing the boundaries between science stories and news.
I would suggest this post be continued in the "Not Quite Science" area and if we want any real discussion on global warming at all to occur here, that further posts not be added to this thread.
Richard
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
Originally posted by DA Morgan: dehammer wrote: "another news story from the global warming alarmist bbc. what do you expect from them, ballanced reporting?"
You mean like that provided by Fox News? Of course not. Had you read the story you might have found the following:
"According to BBC business correspondent Hugh Pym, the report will carry weight because Sir Nicholas, a former World Bank economist, is seen as a neutral figure."
The BBC is a news organization: They carried the story. That they carried it does not discount the fact that the report was writen by someone considered neutral by many. so you consider someone neutral if they start with the theory that global warming exist except they dont consider it a theory, but a stated proven fact? how is that neutral? if he had been neutral, then the article would have gone something like "IF global warming exist, it might do this, but it would depend on the surverity." Instead the article stated that it would most definately happen, and it might be this bad. you see, I actually had read it. But once again, they just ran another story with the primese that global warming had already been proven as a fact. As i stated, its another news story written by a global warming alarmist published by someone who is not willing to look at both possiblities, because the other possibility will not sell subscritions.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
Originally posted by RicS: I would suggest this post be continued in the "Not Quite Science" area and if we want any real discussion on global warming at all to occur here, that further posts not be added to this thread.
Richard opps sorry, i had not seen this when i posted.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
This may surprise your RicS but when you wrote: "Another useless thread that is NOT science. Economic analysis of what might happen is a bit like saying that a third world war will cost 3% of annual world economic input."
I agree with you completely. I had a rather devious point in posting it ... and it relates to dehammer trying to claim that a link to the Hoover Institute, was relevant to climatology.
Look at his responses, above, he clearly does not see the difference. Glad someone else here can discern the difference between science and opinion.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
This is just one more of many that you have posted, so how would i know that this was not another of your "science" post. since its identical to so many of yours, i didnt and still dont see the difference.
yes that one was political that i used, but so are yours. the facts that they presented, albet not much were factual. The point is that while you accept the political opinions on the links you give, you refuse the opinions of others that disagree with you as non science.
yes i saw this was non science, but then so is 99 percent or more of yours. what is the difference about this one?
the things is, there were some that i posted that were scientific based that you of course totally ignored.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
dehammer asks: "This is just one more of many that you have posted, so how would i know that this was not another of your "science" post."
The same way I do yours. You look at the source of the information and if it is from a site that is not a reliable source of science you call the poster on it and ask them to provide a link to science ... not opinion.
The phrase "busted" comes to mind but I don't want to be unkind. My point was to educate not embarrass.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
unfortunately, you claim that very biased pro global warming sites are scientific, while any very biased anti global warming is non scientific. either both are, or neither is.
your right, you are busted. no need to be embarassed to admit it.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
C,mon you two, knock it off.
|
|
|
|
|