One of those factions isn't major anywhere else in the world but Oz... a country dependent on its own extractive industries, and Canada which has the same problem. It is among other things, almost completely unrepresented among the scientists who study climate science, or in the climate science data. So what we can understand from this is that there is ONE faction that is ignoring the science in favor of the profits.That is perilous, because when the climate changes sufficiently to generate the 2x4 event (the one that gets the attention of everyone because it is so far from normal that the general population gets scared) that faction will suffer such a loss of credibility and fall from grace that no man can foresee its return. Keep it up and there may be NO Republican, Conservative, Libertarian or Tea party for the next millennium and that'd be bad. Balance is better. Rather than denying that science is legitimate conservatives should embrace it and look for ways to change things that involve shifting as little money and power to government as possible. THAT would be a win-win for everyone. Not an "economic" risk, those are embedded in the climate risk and related governmental risks, but the loss of that check on big government is an indirect risk to our long term economic health. I posted a link to Hansen's latest paper above in this thread. It is important. Important to understand that he is taking it to some of the so-called "green" movement for their opposition to nuclear. Very very few people who understand the science are objecting to nukes... but there are definitely a fair number of "greens" who come up short on the engineering and need for electrical energy in bulk to make up for the fossil energy they want shut down.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar