ITU says IT industry must become 'resilient' in face of climate change The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United Nations agency responsible for information and communication technologies, has declared the information and communications technologies industries must “design and implement strategies for the sector to better prepare for, respond and adjust to the impacts of short- and …
You mean like: the sea levels that aren't rising at unprecedented rates, the glaciers that aren't retreating at record speeds, and the 17-year temperature "pause" which you can't explain?
I have yet to meet anyone who thinks CO2 does *not* contribute to global temperature levels - but your proposition that were are in a "crisis" that requires "emergency measures" needs very strong evidence to support it. And you don't appear to have that.
Because you have got used to thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is a certifiable lunatic, you are now in something of a bind. The crisis/emergency strategy hasn't worked. Best of luck finding your way to something like a rational position.
You have the nerve to ask for 'a rational position'? You seem to want us all to do nothing, on the off-chance that the IPCC's 95% probabibility is actually only 90%? Not a rational position. Especially since the IPCC's position is based on more evidence than a rational person could ever want.
"You seem to want us all to do nothing"
Meaningless. There is no such thing as "doing nothing". Literally.
The most cost effective response to climate change will be some combination of adaptation and mitigation, whichever produces the highest cost-benefit. Mitigation encompasses both long-term strategies, like low carbon fuel sources (eg, fusion) and short-term panic measures like putting up wind turbines which need gas backup, and which fall down ten years later. The latter option very expensive. As for adaptation, it falls within general operating budgets - ask the Dutch about how they cope living below sea level.
So if by "doing nothing" you mean "doing more adaptation than expensive mitigation" they duh, yes. Because that will probably produce the most effective cost-benefit outcome.
"...on the off-chance that the IPCC's 95% probability is actually only 90%? "
The IPCC's 95 per cent figure is not a forecast of catastrophic future climate change. It is a probability estimate that "the main cause" of warming since 1950 is man. This is not news, and it is certainly not a prediction.
So. This is actually what a rational argument looks like strum.
If you want to play with the big boys, try and learn from it.
We have a levee around our data center! Admittedly we are on a flood plain next to a big river, and, we had to use sandbags to keep the water out a couple of years ago.
The advice about switching to wireless is rubbish for two reasons. One only the "last mile" is wireless; the trafic is carried over copper or fibre the rest of the way. Two fiber and copper can carry data quite happily under several feet of water, it's only a problem if you need to repair or upgrade.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
