Need to know????

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Better question, what is the cost if we do nothing?

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/econ_costs_cc.pdf

I have skimmed your link and will read more thourougly later. It's very alarmist and includes the 20 feet sea rise that will take millenia to occur IF it happens at all.

Below is the type of argument about the choices we face as a society and their costs.
------------------------------------------------

Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure--$75 billion--the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?
We know from economic models that dealing just with malaria could provide economic boosts to the order of 1% extra GDP growth per capita per year. Even making a very conservative estimate that solving all the major basic issues would induce just 2% extra growth, 100 years from now each individual in the developing world would be more than 700% richer. That truly trivializes Mr. Stern's 10% to 13% estimates for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.
We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment, simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines. LINK

[Michael Larson]

The Union of Concerned Scientists Associated with "leftist" causes

UCS also has powerful allies in the media. On Jan. 31, 2007, CNN’s “Larry King Live” hosted a debate on global warming featuring Bill Nye, best known for his television appearances as “The Science Guy.” On the show, Nye boasted about being “a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.” He also warned that fresh water from melting ice caps flowing into the sea would upset “the salt-heat driven ocean currents,” which are “what makes the Gulf Stream go ... and if the Gulf Stream stops....”
MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen, a highly respected scientist, responded on air that there is no danger of the Gulf Stream’s stopping, since it would require one of two physical impossibilities. “The Gulf Stream is driven by wind,” he said. “To shut it down, you’d have to stop the rotation of the Earth or shut off the wind.” After further debate, Lindzen noted, “I was saying textbook material. And if the textbooks are out-voiced by environmental advocacy groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists by 100,000 to one, that would be bizarre. We should close down our schools.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists is not about to relent in its green climate crusade. Yet UCS does not speak for the scientific community. Instead, it is a well-funded, left-wing pressure group, which politicizes science while claiming to be its true guardian. A partisan is no less a partisan because he has won the Nobel Prize, but a scientist is less of a scientist if he allows ideology to color his research. n
Full Article

[Michael Larson]

Words of Wisdon From the Faithful Heretic

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

(Interviewer's question)

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
MUCH MORE

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

------------------------------------------------

Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure--$75 billion--the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?

Tell you what, lets spend a fraction of what we spend every year on wars around the world, that way we can fix everything.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Tell you what, lets spend a fraction of what we spend every year on wars around the world, that way we can fix everything.

Please state your estimated cost of wars around the world and your proposal to stop them. Without those you are just wishing and certainly not being serious in any meaningful way.

P.S. I notice your reluctance to react or refute the views of scientist who do not hole to the "global warming" party line. I find that quite tiresome.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

P.S. I notice your reluctance to react or refute the views of scientist who do not hole to the "global warming" party line. I find that quite tiresome.

For every link or scientist opinion that you post, I could post ten to refute. What's the point?

The IPCC report says it all.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Please state your estimated cost of wars around the world and your proposal to stop them. Without those you are just wishing and certainly not being serious in any meaningful way.

Well, the cost of the Iraq war so far is around 424 BILLION !

A fraction of that one alone would be a huge step forward.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

The IPCC report says it all.

No it doesn't. It's driven by politics. Science should not be about politics.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Well, the cost of the Iraq war so far is around 424 BILLION !

A fraction of that one alone would be a huge step forward.

What fraction jason1? You are becoming even more tiresome by your selective answers and dodging the real question of cost effectiveness. Step back a bit from the IPCC and think. You can do it.

[Jason1]

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

You know it all, Mike, you should run for office. Just think what a better world it would be with you making all the decisions. I have a feeling you would be impeached within two months
</IMG>

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

No it doesn't. It's driven by politics. Science should not be about politics.

You don't seriously believe that?

You are more far gone than I had thought.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

You know it all, Mike, you should run for office. Just think what a better world it would be with you making all the decisions. I have a feeling you would be impeached within two months
</IMG>

More name calling. Again, very tiresome.
I don't know it all but am always willing to learn more. How about you?

Run for office? No way. I couldn't put my hand out continually like the scientists you are so in love with. I have more integrity than that.

Of course you seem to be willing to make all those decisions yourself. Hmmm. Maybe you should run for office.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

You don't seriously believe that?

You are more far gone than I had thought.

You want to trust politicians? Wow that is really far gone.

Real science has NOTHING to do with politics because it is the discovery of facts. Look back through history you will see.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Real science has NOTHING to do with politics because it is the discovery of facts. Look back through history you will see.

Exactly, Mike. Take a look at those facts.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Exactly, Mike. Take a look at those facts.

Which fact would you like to discuss?

Do you understand the difference between real facts(proven and repeatable) and consensus "facts"(majority opinion)?

Go ahead pick one to discuss and we can have a conversation.