PAGE 5… (back to TOC)
65.
67. Sea level rising 20 feet.
68. Greenland is melting
69. “Moulin” in Greenland – 1992 vs. 2002
70. Tony Blair’s scientific advisor said maps
will need to be re-drawn
71. Sea levels rising – San Francisco, Florida,
Manhattan
It’s true that when sea ice is moved away from the land, the land based glacier ice can move more freely into the ocean. Just how much that would raise sea level is difficult at best to figure out, so I’ll take the word of those that REALLY know.
We remember the spectacular shots of the glaciers breaking away into the ocean. He uses this so that the observer can see the ice breaking into the ocean causing the sea levels to rise. Anyone taking an Alaskan cruise sees this happening all the time – it’s what glaciers do when they reach the ocean! Dr. Boris Winterhalter, PhD University of Helsinki, retired Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national and international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland…
The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
There would have to be quite a bit of ice breaking into the ocean to raise levels 20 feet as Gore says. Even the IPCC report doesn’t match up with Gore’s doomsday predictions about sea-level rise. In a February 2007 article from Investor’s Business Daily…
There's just one problem with these nightmare scenarios: The consensus of global warming scientists is that the sea level won't rise by 20 feet, or even 5 feet. Instead, they predict seas will rise by at most 23 inches, and as little as 7 inches. And even that will take 100 years to occur. That's not nothing, but it's hardly the sort of thing that would suddenly displace millions of people.
What's more, the scientific consensus has become less worrisome, not more, as global warming science has improved.
In the late 1970s, scientists were predicting a 25-foot sea level rise from global warming. By the mid-1980s, the consensus had dropped to about 3 feet. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from 1990 put its 'best estimate' for sea level rise at 25 inches. By 1995, that dropped to 19 inches.
And if you take the midpoint from the latest U.N. report, the prediction now rests at 15 inches between now and 2100. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=255658425108013
Of course Gore’s figuring the entire continent of Greenland
melting! Greenland IS NOT MELTING!!! It’s a continent with bedrock under
it! The ice on it can melt, but the
continent will still be there. In fact, it is cooling pretty significantly. A
2006 article in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Extending
The warmest year in the extended
In fact, we have temperature records indicating that
An important question is to what
extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal
regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although
there has been a considerable temperature increase
during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate
occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon
dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of
1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise.
The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural
variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990s can be a contributing
factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].
The glacier acceleration observed during the 1996-2005 period [Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006]
has probably occurred previously. There should have been the same or more
extensive acceleration during the 1920-1930 warming as well as during the
Medieval Warm period in Greenland [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998; DeMenocal et al., 2000] when Greenland temperatures were
generally higher than today. The total Greenland mass seems to be stable or
slightly growing [Zwally et al., 2005].
To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the
Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to
2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
So let’s hear from an authority on melting ice in Greenland. Global temperatures are warming, so ice will melt. But by how much and how fast??? Here’s more from an article from News.com about comments from Susan Solomon from the NOAA…
Approximately 125,000 years ago, Earth was 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer on average than it is today, and sea levels were 4 to 6 meters higher. The ice sheets covering Greenland's land mass have trapped a significant amount of the water that used to be in the sea, thereby lowering sea levels, Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the co-chair of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the American Association for the Advancement of Science taking place in San Francisco.
If the land ice on Greenland were to melt completely, the sea levels could rise six or seven meters again, but the current scientific models indicate it will take thousands of years. Both land and sea ice around Greenland are melting. (Sea ice is melting, but it doesn't raise sea levels because it's already in the water.)
"It would take centuries, if not millennia, to get a four to six meter rise" in sea levels, she said. Global temperatures would have to be raised by 1.9 to 4.6 degrees Celsius and be kept that way for several centuries, she added. http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6160463-7.html
About Antarctica, Dr. Patrick Michaels, PhD Ecological Climatology from University of Wisconsin at Madison, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. is direct:
Despite a warming Southern Ocean, the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. This represents a continuation of the record set last winter (our summer).
Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month. At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.
Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed toward its annual low point, there should be about seven million square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois' Web publication Cryosphere Today shows, there is nearly 30 percent more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22943
So what about the rest of the continent? In 2002, Nature published a study by Peter T. Doran, Associate Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago Earth and Environmental Sciences, which looked at Antarctic temperature trends from 1966 to 2000. Here is the abstract from his findings…
The average air temperature at the
Earth's surface has increased by 0.06 °C per decade during the 20th
century, and by 0.19 °C per decade from 1979 to 1998. Climate models
generally predict amplified warming in polar regions,
as observed in
Three PhDs from MIT… Carl Wunsch, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Rui M. Ponte, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, and Patrick Heimbach, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, have written this summary in their paper recently in May 2007 dealing with even the accuracy of measuring global sea levels…
At best, the determination and attribution of global mean sea level change lies at the very edge of knowledge and technology. The most urgent job would appear to be the accurate determination of the smallest temperature and salinity changes that can be determined with statistical significance, given the realities of both the observation base and modeling approximations. Both systematic and random errors are of concern, the former particularly, because of the changes in technology and sampling methods over the many decades, the latter from the very great spatial and temporal variability implied by Figs. 2, 6, and 8. It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be. The priority has to be to make such calculations possible in the future. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
72. Preparation for GW vs. preparation for
terrorists????
My God, I don’t know where to start with this… just the
notion that trying to fix global warming is more important than trying to fix
terrorism is beyond me. The whole
concept of whether we should spend our effort and treasures on changing the temperature
of the earth, or seeking out those that will do whatever they can to kill us…
hmmm, what should we doing? To me it
comes down to this… there is considerable evidence here in this document that
even if we could do something about the temperatures of the earth, it would
take many many years and a total global effort which
just isn’t going to happen. But I saw
myself on September 11th the evidence that there are a large number
of people who make it their life’s total goal to cut off our heads… they would
be ecstatic to see you, me and our girls dead.
Instead of the
If you haven’t seen first hand any of the videos that show these animals sawing off the heads of live human beings, it might bring home the point. Just know that when you see it, you will be sick. Have a trashcan handy!
Here are two interesting speeches on this subject. The first given on September 23, 2002, a year after 9/11, the second on September 9, 2005…
I want to talk about the
relationship between
To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
I know that you are debating as an organization and talking among yourselves about your own priorities. I would urge you to make global warming your priority. I would urge you to focus on a unified theme. I would urge you to work with other groups in ways that have not been done in the past, even though there have been Herculean efforts on your part and the part of others. I would urge you to make this a moral moment. To make this a moral cause. http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-09algore.asp
Chances are you wouldn’t imagine in a million years that both articles speeches were given by the producer, director and main star of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore himself. When it’s ‘convenient’ for him, he puts either terrorism or global warming to the front. Just a reminder of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Hillary gave this speech on the floor of the Senate on 9/12…
We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors
plan the necessary actions to demonstrate
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-clintons-response-to-the-911-attacks
Apparently our “time of need” had passed, and now we are going to fix the earth’s temperature!
73. Learn from
Chinese scientists, their economy is surging
Hey, great idea! Let’s do learn from the Chinese! They’re doing so much good over there – we should model our whole country after these lovely people who imprison and kill innocent freedom loving people, who mandate that families can only have one child, the same ones that now lead the world in polluting our atmosphere… OK, let’s see what the Chinese are up to…
The growth in China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is far outpacing previous estimates, making the goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases much more difficult, according to a new analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and UC San Diego.
Previous estimates, including
those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the region
that includes
The researchers' most conservative
forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric
tons of carbon emissions in
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/international/03-08ChinasCarbonDioxideEmissions.asp
So for Gore to say that the Chinese are the models of efficiency when it comes to being green - - well let me say it gently… HE’S LYING!!! Have you heard that before? The US does emit quite a bit of stuff into the atmosphere, but it also supplies quite a bit of the world’s food and technology. Now that the Chinese have taken the number one polluter spot, what do they provide to the world?? Besides owning most of our nation’s financial wealth today, they provide nothing. Oh, and they are exempt from having to abide by the Kyoto accord because of their emergent status… basically the stiff requirements of the Kyoto treaty only apply to the US… hmmm, that’s fair? Yep, let’s follow the leadership of China – great idea.
76. “30% of the CO2 that goes up into the atmosphere each year is from forest burning”
Another incredible fictitious Gorism. My gosh – if forest burning is 30% of all CO2 emissions, then maybe we should concentrate on stopping the burning of forests rather than cutting only 18% supposedly coming from fossil fuels! Totally bogus statement meant only to add a little extra spice to a point he was making where real truth backup wasn’t available. I pulled this paragraph from a pro-AGW site which states only 9%!
This might seem like an odd one, but a 2006 UN report suggested that livestock production results in more greenhouse gas emission, in CO2 equivalent, than the transportation sector (although they don't seem to say how much more). The 18% figure includes methane (6%) and nitrous oxide (3%) output, and also CO2 from production (forest burning & fossil fuel inputs - 9%). Nitrous oxide forcing has been growing moderately (currently 0.16 W/m2 vs. 1.66 for CO2) and methane is so far lingering around 0.5 W/m2. Meanwhile CO2 emission from transit and power generation continues to grow rapidly, and may take more time to mitigate. Therefore, it's important to get serious about all significant sources, agricultural and otherwise. http://www.understandit.org/
77.
Rise of new technology makes us a force of nature – A Bomb
78. Frog in pot – sit and do nothing
81. Whitehouse internal memo
leaked – “Reposition GW as theory and not fact” Misconception caused by
relatively small group of people
82. Phillip Cooney – American
Petroleum Institute moves to Exxon
Claims that President Bush hired Phil Cooney to "be in charge" of White House environmental policy. This must be a surprise to former White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chairman James Connaughton, who hired Cooney and was his boss at the CEQ.
83. Upton Sinclair –
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it”
92. Advertising
climatecrisis.net – “reduce CO2 emissions to zero”
Pot calling a kettle black… Gore is founder and chairmen of Generation Investment Management. Anyone who followed the ‘climatecrisis.net’ trail will wind up at GIM’s doorstep. Imagine that, Gore advertising in his own movie to send him more money!
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
Over $110 million dollars have been invested in carbon offsets… into Gore’s company… too bad that money wasn’t invested in our auto industry research to come up with alternative fuel for our cars. Where did all that money go???
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&filenum=028-12114&owner=include&count=40
Shareholder Corporations too many to list… big ones you know: Staples, Amflac, UBS, General Electric, Proctor & Gamble.
The Carbon Neutral Company, one of the vendors that sell offsets to Gore's GIM, admits that offsets "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions … in the short term." Instead, offsets merely: "(1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies." So while carbon offsets may make shamefaced environmentalists feel better for taking action, they do little to actually cleanse the environment.
James Kantor, New York Times…
The operations reflect a new consciousness about climate change, but scientists and environmental watchdogs say that the carbon trading actually may be producing little of real value to the environment.
“These companies may be operating with the best will in the
world, but they are doing so in settings where it’s not really clear you can
monitor and enforce their projects over time,” said Steve Rayner,
a senior professor at
While on the subject of the pot calling the kettle black here’s food for thought… The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Gore should really take his own advice.
84. Auto standard graph – GHG
emission standards
Chart reads MPG converted to CAFÉ test cycles Only actual points are in 2002, speculation about 2010 figures but US has actual numbers.
Gore does not compare consistent fuel economy figures here,
and does not acknowledge that in most cases multiple standards are involved.
The Chinese "standard", for example, is really 16 different minimum
thresholds for each of 16 different weight classes, excluding commercial
vehicles and pickup trucks; in 2005, these thresholds range from 19 to 38 mpg.
In the
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
85. Science Aug 13,
2004 Article from Stephen Pacala & Robert Socolow “Humanity already possesses the fundamental
scientific, technical and industrial know how to solve the carbon and climate
problems…”
86. Political will
to change?
87.
Of course, even if man-made global warming is the primary
cause of the mild temperature and sea-level rises being observed, this doesn’t
settle the question of what to do about it. The environmental lobby’s answer
is: Ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Time isn’t even subtle about it, calling George
W. Bush’s environmental record “dismal” and specifically citing his abandonment
of
In a word, nothing.
Thirty Kyotos would also come at
the price of economic collapse. When it’s not even clear that the warming we’ve
seen is hurting us — many argue that it’s a boon, citing its benefits to
agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable — such
draconian solutions should be unthinkable. And if it turns out that carbon dioxide
is hurting the planet, it’s probably doing so at such a gradual pace that the
best solution is to wait for markets to produce new innovations in energy
technology. (And are we finally far enough away from
88. Are we capable of rising
above circumstances
Again let’s hear from John R. Christy, PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from University of Illinois, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville member of the IPCC team and co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore…
Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.
But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?
My experience as a missionary
teacher in
Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
89. Completely
bipartisan move to tear down the Communist wall
Not enough time to do justice on this issue… but let me briefly say this. HOGWASH! The Dems hated Reagan and cut him down at every turn. The ONLY reason that we defeated Communist Russia is that the conservatives in congress outnumbered the dems and they couldn’t stop the leadership of Reagan. This is kind of long, but says it all…
As Reagan began to utter the words to his oath of office, the clock ticked away and just after Reagan was sworn in as President, the clock passed 12 P.M. and it was official. Our American hostages were out of Iranian airspace and beginning their journey home. The fear of what a forceful President might do to those involved in holding our citizens hostage was enough to end the standoff. 444 days after having their freedom taken away, it was restored and just like those hostages, America was about to embark upon a journey that would rekindle our spirits, raise our hopes and restore our standing in the world.
It was not easy. Liberals chastised Ronald Reagan every step of the way. They called him a war monger and said he was old and out of touch. They even equated him to the devil. Some claimed that he was in fact the devil. They said that his name, Ronald Wilson Reagan, was proof , because just like the numbers representing the devil, 6 6 6, each of the three monikers used in Reagan’s full name were comprised of 6 letters.
The outlandish charges,
and innuendoes never dampened the spirit of Reagan. In regards to criticism of
his age, he replied “Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a
president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I
stopped worrying.”
When it came to his aggressive
stance against the Soviet Union and the arms build up that he stood for, Reagan
said “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the
Less than one year after Andrpov dropped off, his successor, Constantine Chernenko kicked the bucket.
Following Chernenko’s demise, the old guard decided to turn to someone from a younger generation. Someone who might be able to hold on to life and office for more than a matter of months.
They turned to Mikhail
Gorbachev. Gorbachev knew his nation
could no longer sustain itself by trying to keep up with Ronald Reagan’s arms
build up. So he began to enter into meaningful negotiations, which along with
Gorbachev’s national reforms of perestroika and glasnost, led to
an end of Cold War hostilities and ultimately the collapse of the
Through it all Ronald Reagan
reinvigorated
But his legacy goes beyond victory
over a nemesis. His legacy included a rethinking of the way nations had to
confront war. During his second term Reagan made a request that would revolutionize
our approach to nuclear threats. It also was a major factor in the Soviet's
inability to keep pace with the
He said “I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
That statement led to SDI, the strategic defense initiative. Some came to ridicule it by calling it star wars because, at the time, it seemed unrealistic to shoot down missiles before they hit us. Back then, it may have seemed unrealistic but what once was Ronald Reagan’s thought, is quickly becoming today’s reality.
There were several other enduring
aspects to the Reagan years. For instance the Reagan Doctrine. That
ideological policy eliminated the isolationist thinking which prohibited the
That is a lesson we learned back then but seem to have a problem accepting today. There were more long lasting, positive effects such as Reagan’s military build up which gave us the ability to properly defend ourselves and to deter aggression aimed at us. But the greatest legacy of Ronald Reagan is probably the lesson he taught us when he made it clear that the American people were not the problem, government was the problem.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977586027&nav=Namespace
90. We shut down the
ozone hole by shutting down chemical uses?
91. OUR ability to live
on planet earth – is it really up to what WE can do??
23. “This is really
not a political issue so much as a moral issue”
25. “The possibility of losing what was most
precious to me, I gained the ability that maybe I didn’t have before, but when
I felt it, I felt that we really could lose.
What we take for granted might not be here for our children”.
Dr. John R. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
The biggest blow to the climate
catastrophists is not any scientific problem, but the hypocrisy of Gore and his
Hollywood cheering section, whose profligate energy use cannot be mitigated in
the popular mind through “carbon offsets,” even if such offsets worked as
advertised. Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s never comprehended how damaging
“limousine liberalism” was to their cause. They seem even more oblivious to the
self-inflicted wounds of “Gulfstream liberalism.”
Whatever the intricacies of climate science, middle-class citizens understand
that Gore wants them to use less energy and pay more for it, while he and his
The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html
So, follow the money trail!! Again, from French Scientist Claude Allegre…
Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is
confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious. But
the exposure of man’s responsibility as regards global warming allows us to sit
idly by (the effect of the measures advocated will be felt only in half a
century!). On the other hand, the crusade against extreme theories can be led
with tangible results! However, as this is not fashionable, we choose to remain
passive. In the meanwhile, the ecology
of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835
I found this that kind of goes along with the
subject. From Christopher
Monckton, The Third Viscount Monckton of
Footnote: A Tale of Two Houses
House #1: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house has 4 bedrooms and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet holds geothermal heatpumps circulating water through pipes sunk 300 feet deep. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses one-quarter of the electricity used by a conventional system. Rainwater is collected in a 25,000-gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks, then into the cistern, from which the garden is irrigated.
House #2: A 20-room mansion with 8 bathrooms, a pool and poolhouse, and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs to over $2,400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in the Northern or Midwestern snow-belt. It's in the South.
House #1, near Crawford, Texas, belongs to President George Bush. House #2, near Nashville, Tennessee, belongs to Gore. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton-gores_10_errors_old_and_new.pdf
CONCLUSION
So what does this all mean? Several things to sum it all up. We are all being led to give up our way of lives, our freedoms. This is another incredibly convoluted way to get us so afraid that we give up our wealth to others that we are being told have the answers. That’s called redistribution of wealth, or socialism or communism, you pick. So I know you are saying that this isn’t a scare tactic? In a very recent interview, billionaire Ted Turner said this about global warming…
If steps aren't taken to stem global warming, "We'll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.
"Most of the people will have
died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69.
"Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in
a failed state — like
So what are we to do to keep from eating each other? Well, they’re hard at work up there in the
socialist capitol
Cutting emissions in the
• With no restrictions on biomass
trade we find that the
• Potential revenue from allowance sales or a CO2-e tax (or windfall gain to those to whom allowances were freely distributed) are substantial under the emissions limits we examined, ranging from about $130 to $370 billion per year in 2015 to $250 to $515 billion per year in 2050. In more stringent policies revenue falls off in later years because the number allowances falls off faster than the CO2-e price rises. If distributed to households, the annual distribution would be on the order of $1600 to $4900 per family of four household. The CO2-e revenue is on the order of 10 to 15% of estimated future total Federal tax revenue, ranging across scenarios and over time from 5 to nearly 20%. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act co-authored by Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) … Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
Congressional Budget Office… "Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
"The CBO noted that the proposed cap-and-trade allocation method "would increase producers’ profits without lessening consumers’ costs. In essence, such a strategy would transfer income from energy consumers—among whom lower income households would bear disproportionately large burdens—to shareholders of energy companies, who are disproportionately higher-income households."
"Researchers conclude that much or all of the allowance cost would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Those price increases would disproportionately affect people at the bottom of the income scale. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the price rises resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions would cost the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of the income distribution about 3.3 percent of its average income. By comparison, a household in the top quintile would pay about 1.7 percent of its average income."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf
In conclusion, when we have been frightened enough to pay up
and lose our wealth to save the world, have we really saved it? What about all those folks around the world
that need their own industrial growth to give them the same comforts we have in
the
Yet, even perfect compliance with
The real danger is that we will handcuff economies and hammer poor families, to promote solutions which won’t solve a problem that the evidence increasingly suggests is moderate, manageable and primarily natural in origin.
The real catastrophe is that we are already using overwrought claims about a climate cataclysm to justify depriving Earth’s most impoverished citizens of electricity and other modern technologies that would make their lives infinitely better.
Real ethics and social responsibility would weigh these costs and benefits, foster robust debate about every aspect of climate change, ensure continued technological advancement, and give a seat at the decision table to the real stakeholders: not climate alarmists – but those who have to live with the consequences of decisions that affect their access to energy, health, hope, opportunity and prosperity. http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/11/19/the-real-climate-change-catastrophe/
Probably best said by Nils-Axel
Mörner is the former head of the Paleogeophysics
and Geodynamics department at
There is absolutely no justification for burdening people with the huge financial costs of sea level rises that cannot happen, carbon taxes or emission charges, or for placing unwarranted restrictions on the way we live our lives.
Instead, people in positions of political authority should be paying greater and more urgent attention to clear and present problems such as earthquakes, tsunamis, clean air, clean water and the elimination of diseases such as malaria and AIDs. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0708/S00012.htm
Other internet sites with quite a bit of information…
http://www.billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html
www.cei.org/pdf/ait/AIT-CEIresponse.ppt
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Emperor's%20new%20climate%20-%20Anderson.htm http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/errors_in_al_gore_s_an_inconvenient_truth.html http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/apocalypse_cancelled.pdf.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070430_solomon.pdf.
http://sirver.neutral.cz/subs/action.php?id=4&sub_id=62726
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/gores_10_errors_old_new.html
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
http://www.oism.org/news/index.htm
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
UNOFFICIAL SCRIPT OF THE MOVIE!!!!
http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm