Really? Not Hitler, Stalin, Mao, malaria?
Guardian-climate-blogger-who-works-for-an-EPA-contractor-without-disclosure Dana Nuccitelli writes in an attack on Judith Curry:
At the moment, climate change looks like humanity’s greatest-ever risk management failure. Hopefully we’ll remedy that failure before we commit ourselves to catastrophic climate consequences that we’re unprepared to face.
The real threat to the planet are the Great Green Hoax alarmist promoters.
The 4 principles of Operational Risk Management are:
Accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost.
Accept no unnecessary risks.
Anticipate and manage risk by planning.
Make risk decisions at the right level
I’d say the risks of ever 90 degree day being a 95 degree day in a hundred years is pretty low compared to the necessity of providing energy and food to 7 billion people. The benefits clearly outweigh even the made up costs. I can imagine living in a world with no polar bears. I don’t imagine much of a difference. As far as planning goes, I think 100 years is enough time to stop building so close to the shore lines. Every coast I’ve ever lived on has already been dredging up sand to rebuild at least once a year or two. The real problem is that “make decisions at the right level part”. We need to work hard to get a higher level of people into those decision making spots. That’s the only way we’ll successfully manage the risk of CAGW alarmism.
Howdy Matt
I followed the link and came back ambivalent. There are reasons to worry about zoning in low areas. There are also reasons to worry about “the latest science” on rising sea level, since there are at least a few estimates about sea level rise and some seem more political than scientific.
They leave out the major reason for risk management with alleged cancer causing chemicals–personal injury lawsuits. Sure, the risk is small, often ridiculously small, but a clever lawyer can snow a jury low in understanding of actual science and get huge settlements (most of which goes to the lawyers). It’s not about risk of cancer, it’s about risk of lawsuit. When someone actually manages to find a way to sue for climate change not stopped (so far no success but finding someone with lots of cash that you can blame is hard–mostly it’s governments and they won’t let you sue them), things will get ugly. Let’s hope the scam ends soon.
Concur. Unfortunately, things like this keep happening: http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782
No, he’s wrong. He doesn’t even make an argument for or against the actual content of the article. He just states 3 dead dictators and a disease we’re on the verge of eliminating, while simultaneously displaying a complete understanding of the concept of risk management.
Since climates and weather patterns do change, the correct “risk management” is to plan and build for foreseeable risks plus a margin for conceivable risk. Thus Nawlins’ levees should have been beefed up long before — and those drowned school buses should have been used for evacuations. Low-lying areas are known to be vulnerable to storm surge, which is what did most of Sandy’s damage — so you zone the low-lying areas for lower-risk property or other uses, or the owners build to guard their property, or they pay insurance premiums commensurate with the risk.
Human activity is a tiny forcing in the climate-weather “systems” — I put that in quotes because the elements interact but not by any known intent or design. We could not make a real change in weather events by any known human agency. We can affect how much damage follows from extreme weather incidents.
Everything is the greatest ever, worst ever, etc. with these guys. They have the mentality of a self centered child.
None of them gave us Dana. Climate change did.
He’s right!!