Re: [asa] Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory and Busted Sod

From: <mlucid@aol.com>
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 00:08:07 EDT

(Snip)

I think, Janice, that
you are biased by issues external to the science and more to your
personal/political disposition.? You would do well to try and
examine the world purely on your own recognizance, and pay less attention
to the polarized, dogmatic positions of what passes for the American
political landscape.?

-Mike (But I still love ya.)

@? Now THAT is the funniest thing I've
heard all day!?? Talk about the pot calling the kettle
black!??

I know
you think that anyone who disagrees with your position has succumbed to
the polarization I mention above, but note that I agree with your
position about the idiocy of the corn alternative fuel issue.? This
indicates that I don't follow one side's prepackaged mindset.? I look
carefully at the facts for the most part.? I think that you identify me
as the "other side" but believe me I'm not.? Hillary Clinton is just
another Corporate apologist in a kinder gentler packaging.? I am not
the other side. I am my side.? My side may still be disagreeable to
you, in many ways, but I would still prefer that you saw it as me
disagreeing with you and not some collective to which I subscribe.?

~? Janice (But I still love ya.
:)

You know Janice, that's all that really matters
to me.? All this other stuff will work itself out one way or another.?
But you being mi amiga after it's past is what's important more than
anything.? Because what you and I do one way or the other about global
warming is just a feather on the scales.? But what we are to each other
has a real, perceivable affect, now, in both our lives. .?

-Mike (tu amigo)

[snip]

[3]?
Chill out.

Washington Post ^ | October 14, 2007 | BJORN LOMBORG

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html

Excerpts:

"... predictions of impending
disaster just don't stack up.

"...research shows that the cold is a much bigger killer than
the heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate
change's health effects, global warming will actually save lives.
It's estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000
more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million
fewer people will die from cold.

"...Global warming will claim lives in another way: by
increasing the number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3
percent over this century. According to scientific models, implementing
the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the
malaria risk by just 0.2 percent.

On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion annually -- 2 percent of
the protocol's cost -- on mosquito nets and medication and cut malaria
incidence almost in half within a decade. Malaria death rates are
rising in

sub-Saharan Africa, but this has nothing to do with climate change
and everything to do with poverty: Poor and corrupt governments
find it hard to implement and fund the spraying and the provision of
mosquito nets that would help eradicate the disease. Yet for every
dollar we spend saving one person through policies like the Kyoto
Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention.

"......Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same:
Reducing carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world.
.....I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't
achieve it.

In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut emissions to 1990 levels by
2000. Instead, emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they promised to
cut emissions to about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet levels
will likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for.

"...Even if the policymakers' earlier promises had
been met, they would have done virtually no good, but would have cost us
a small fortune. The climate models show that Kyoto would have postponed
the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century.
Even if the United States and

Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire
century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five
years.

Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to spend enormous sums of
money doing very little good for the planet a hundred years from now.
...

The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2is currently about $20.
Yet, according to a wealth of scientific literature, the damage from a
ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. Spending $20 to do $2 worth
of good is not smart policy. ...

...I formed the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004 so that some of
the world's top economists could come together to ask not only where we
can do good, but at what cost, and to rank the best things for the world
to do first. The top priorities they've come up with are dealing with
infectious diseases, malnutrition, agricultural research and first-world
access to third-world agriculture. For less than a fifth of Kyoto's price
tag, we could tackle all these issues. ....."

Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business
School, is the author, most recently, of "Cool It: The
Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free

AOL Mail!

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 21 00:09:03 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 21 2007 - 00:09:03 EDT