That was quite a long response Atropos. Yet it failed to answer my simple question. Were my statements wrong?
This thread is about climate change. It is not about my qualifications. Feel free to start your own thread about that if you find it so important.
Were my statements wrong? Why is it so hard for you to answer?
So it's always great when someone behind a computer screen who has no experience whatsoever in the field is condescending enough to tell you that you are wrong, experts like Tim Flannery are wrong and that quoting a few lines from google mean you know that climate change is all a "con".
That's ok though, I and others on here I'm sure are very comfortable with our views. That are founded from real research, field experience and years on the job.
In answer to yours, I don't know with certainty if you are right or wrong. Another poster mentioned sea temps and other factors that need to be taken in to account- it seems like you have ignored those so there is every chance you are wrong.
Your turn. Qualifications?
I ask again what economic harm there is in providing incentives for clean energy now, so that we can be prepared?
From a public policy perspective, it is irrelevant whether there has been any "statistically significant" warming for the last 16 years, or whether the rate of warming matches predicted rates of warming. What matters is that effects of climate change have been observed, such as melting polar ice caps, and natural resources are limited; so it makes sense to encourage (& pay for) the development and commercialisation of clean energy technologies. As an added bonus, Australia has the chance to be a world leader in clean energy, which will bring with it huge economic benefit... which might enable us to sustain strong economic growth once the mining boom subsides (see earlier comment regarding finite resources).
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!