You have evidence that beds and houses repel meteorites?. Please post the reference. If they don’t, then I’ll stick with the ~1:700,000 lifetime odds of being killed by one, versus the ~1:7000 lifetime odds of dying in bed from accidental suffocation or strangulation. ( Google “lifetime risk of dying” for sources )

If I didn’t take the risk and sleep, then I could die from the greater risk of accidents due to tiredness. Isn’t the precautionary principle wonderful?, we intuitively perform risk assessments throughout our lives and use that principle to stay well.

” I’m not sure I follow your arguments and my irony filter is on the fritz. ”

Sorry, I was poorly playing Devil’s Advocate, but my scribbling were too muddled. I don’t dispute the data, but science by the number of scientists and even “consensus”, doesn’t always have a great track record. If you encounter a group of scientists that give you an unqualified “fact”, you have every reason to be suspicious.

As always, I agree that if we continue to procrastinate, we make the task harder, hence my suggestion scientists should just accept that their perpetual qualifications in IPCC reports are nutrients for other agendas.

The IPCC scientists should cease implying that they are the temple guardians of “true” science, and that their prognostications are important. Uncertainties will always facilitate procrastination, and we need action.

Over a decade on from Usenet sci.environment debates, the same sad incorrect claims appear, and are refuted with as much uncertainty as data will allow, wasting valuable resources. However, such “debates” always continue to be given space by media looking for controversies.

Perhaps Al Gore sees it much the same, and has tried to invoke action, hence the Nobel Peace prize, but he’s inadvertently become yet another distraction. I’m suggesting that we try to invoke more immediate, useful, action to reduce relevant gaseous emissions and energy consumption by utilizing people’s common sense and self interest. I obviously don’t hold out much hope that politicians will achieve much in December.

I’m not sure how tolerant Gareth is of long posts in comments, but I may respond a little to the AGW-Deluded steaming heap, but his using my surname in a futile faint hope of school teacher assertiveness probably means my time would be wasted.

Please keep having fun,

“Global warming” describes what is happening to the planet as a result of the increase in atmospheric CO2, i.e. global mean temperatures are increasing.

“Climate change” refers to the consequences of global warming, i.e. that climate will change – exactly how climate will change differs for different parts of the world.

Both terms have always been used by climate scientists.

The human brain’s main evolutionary advantage was the ability it bestowed to predict our environment and take precautionary approaches. Are you seriously suggesting acting without considering consequences is a good idea? Well don’t let me stop you crossing the road without looking…

You can partially blame the Bushies:

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding “frightening” phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable….The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

Though I always thought ‘climate change’ was just more accurate than the simplistic ‘global warming’, which implies warming, but doesn’t say anything about the other aspects of climate that go with warming, as climate change does, once one bothers to find out the effects.

However, on the subject of climate change, presumably when you alarmist types say “climate change” you still mean specifically “global warming”, right? Or is the term “climate change” really just a cunning and subtle way of backing away from the global warming idea in case temperatures go the other way? It’s “climate change” now because it’s obvious there isn’t any actual warming to speak of. So by using the term “climate change”, you have a dollar each way and can preserve your psychological, subconscious – even pathological – need for some impending ‘disaster’ by claiming that weather events of any sort are the consequence of human-induced climate change (‘global warming’ in brackets). If it rains, it’s because of global warming. If we have a heat wave, it’s because of global warming. Australian bush fire? Global warming. Increasing Arctic sea ice? Global warming. Decreasing sea ice? Global warming. Tsunami? Global warming. Blowfly epidemic? Global warming. Disappearing Amazonian frogs? Global warming. Everything is caused by global warming. It’s the universal elixir, the universal Do-All. Doesn’t matter what it is or what’s happening where because it all now comes under the umbrella of “climate change” (but you will still say “global warming” if anyone presses you on what you mean by “climate change”). The “Global warming” thing is still there; it’s just been veneered over to cope with the adversity of Nature not playing the game and obeying the IPCC’s computer models. You have cleverly hijacked both ends of the argument in case things don’t work out for you temperature-wise, which of course they aren’t because temperatures have been trending downward for the past decade despite CO2 going the other way. I guess you had to think of something. Otherwise there would be a lot of red faces and unemployed climate “researchers” whose “research” grants would have suddenly dried up and they would be out on the street. So “global warming” becomes “climate change” and “climate change” becomes “sustainability”. It’s all about obfuscation and preserving the hobgoblin so that you’ve got something to bleat about, to wring your hands over and to fear. But manmade global warming/climate change is like the witch doctor pointing the bone. It’ll only happen if you believe it.

But then Hamilton says, “we should take action now because it’s timely and sensible, and there are no significant adverse consequences from applying a precautionary approach. We should invest in research and innovation to minimise potential adverse economic effects.” No significant adverse consequences?? Where have you been for the last few months? You don’t think the huge economic costs and the massive increased cost of living that even the Government has admitted to, is “significant”? Are you happy forking out a few thousand extra dollars per year for no known or measurable climatic difference, and on the strength of an hypothesis that is clearly riddled with flaws? Well maybe you have money to burn and you won’t notice the extra financial burden, but most of the rest of us don’t and we will feel the adverse effects of Nick Smith’s madcap carbon taxes. So I want to know what I’m buying for that extra outlay. What precisely is that extra cost going to do for anyone? So far, no one has been able to tell me because it is all based on guess work, supposition and assumption supported by fudge-factors, lies and deceit.

As for the “precautionary” principle, I’m surprised you get out of bed each morning. I mean you might be hit by a meteorite the moment you step outside so wouldn’t you be better off invoking the precautionary principle and staying safely tucked up in bed?

It a pity that they don’t even engage with informed debate. Their arguments aren’t even comparable to the sceptic idiots here. The Kiwiblog sceptics are just pathetic:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/10/general_debate_16_october_2009.html#comment-619929