"00ZBN" <00ZBN@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:48200401@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote
> in message news:fvoqfj$pql$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <RTQTj.73885$dA2.12034@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "V-for-Vendicar"
>> <Justice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>"mrbawana2u" <mrbawana2u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>> And yet 387.19 ppmv is still insignificant.
>>> Significant to cause a temperature rise of 1.3'C
>
> Huh? Where?
> TOTAL warming last century was about 0.6 F, most of which has been
> reversed
> by the cooling of the last ten years.
>
The big question is.......If all these AGW computer models are so damn
accurate, why did none of them predict the cooling?
AGW is a pseudo science and rapidly becoming a religion
>> To anyone interested in this 'debate' (I haven't seen much here :) ), I
>> suggest you get and read the summary of the stern re****t. He states his
>> assumptions and details his data. He is also an economist, and, using
the
>> precautionary principle (as you should if the consequences could be
>> disasterous), suggests that if we do something now, it costs us almost
>> nothing (a small decrease in growth). If we wait 20 years, and there is
a
>> problem, it will cost us heaps.
>> What is the clever response ? Read the summary at least before you
>> answer.
>
>
>
>
> The clever response assuming that AGW bunkum has even a grain of truth,
is
> to do nothing!
>
> Stern's basic conclusion, assuming that AGW bunkum has even a grain of
> truth,
> is that we would be slightly warmer but much richer if we did nothing.
>
> QUOTE: "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
>
>
>
>
> Stern Rant Is Total Bilge
>
> February 10, 2008
>
>
>
> Indury Goklany checks the Stern Re****t - so influential in persuading
> Kevin Rudd we were doomed if we didn't slash emissions - and discovers
> it's as flawed as so many experts say:
>
>
>
> Analysis using both the Stern Review and the fast-track *****sment
reveals
> that notwithstanding climate change, for the foreseeable future, human
and
> environmental well-being will be highest under the "richest-but-warmest"
> scenario and lower for the poorer (lower-carbon) scenarios....
>
>
>
> John Tierney summarises the argument:
>
>
>
> "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.
>
>
>
> Back to Goklany himself:
>
>
>
> 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 ****ft 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.
>
>
>
> Of course, our own Productivity Commission has more fundamental problems
> with Stern's Re****t - as in, it's a dog's breakfast of exaggerations,
> assumptions and plain mistakes.
>
>
>
>
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_guru_overheated/
> --
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
>
> "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
> 25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933
>
|
