Originally Posted By Mr X This is really unbelievable. How could he have been so underhanded!? <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yp8c64" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/yp8c64</a>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 saying this before I click, another one of Mr. X's patented BS threads.... Now I click to see if I am right.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's called a joke. And the reason it is funny is because of the hysterical anti-Gore comments by people on the right who are more interested in putting down Al Gore for whatever reason than in listening to his valuable message. I'm glad these people are starting to turn into a laughing stock. They deserve to be laughed at, if it weren't so serious a problem.
Originally Posted By woody Yeah, such a serious problem.... ----------- "Global-Warming Jujitsu" <a href="http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/global-warming-jujitsu/index.html?hp" target="_blank">http://tierneylab.blogs.nytime s.com/2008/02/06/global-warming-jujitsu/index.html?hp</a> Does that mean our best course of action is to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? That’s the question addressed in a new report by Indur Goklany for the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank that has taken issue with many of the dire predictions about global warming. What’s interesting about this report is that it works from the assumption that the dire forecasts are accurate, even the Stern Review, which has been severely criticized for exaggerating the economic costs of global warming. (See, for instance, the critiques by the Yale economist William Nordhaus in the journal Science and in this article article from the Journal of Economic Literature.) Dr. Goklany accepts the Stern Review’s grim numbers and looks at the I.P.C.C.’s various scenarios, which project different levels of warming and sea-level rise depending on the the rate of economic growth, energy use and other factors. “The surprising conclusion using the Stern Review’s own estimates,†Dr. Goklany writes, “is that future generations will be better off in the richest but warmest†of the I.P.C.C.’s scenarios. He concludes that cutting emissions will do much less good than encouraging sustainable development in poor countries and policies of “focused adaptation†to deal with disease and environmental problems like coastal flooding. For a fifth the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, he calculates, these adaptation policies could yield more immediate and also long-term benefits than would a policy that entirely halted global warming (which would cost far, far more than Kyoto). He argues that this path isn’t merely an economic but also a moral imperative: For the foreseeable future, people will be wealthier—and their well-being higher—than is the case for present generations both in the developed and developing worlds and with or without climate change. The well-being of future inhabitants in today’s developing world would exceed that of the inhabitants of today’s developed world under all but the poorest scenario. Future generations should, moreover, have greater access to human capital and technology to address whatever problems they might face, including climate change. Hence the argument that we should shift resources from dealing with the real and urgent problems confronting present generations to solving potential problems of tomorrow’s wealthier and better positioned generations is unpersuasive at best and verging on immoral at worst. ------------- In other words, deal with the possible effects than the cause. Not only will people do better, they will survive better too.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Mark your annual temperature graphs: <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289" target="_blank">http://www.nationalpost.com/op inion/columnists/story.html?id=332289</a>
