"Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction"

[Mirza]

If nothing is done to slow the process of warming, the grandchildren of today's young adults will inherit a world crippled by food and water shortages, extreme and variable weather, extinctions and other ecosystem damages, and a growing danger of an even more severe catastrophe.[/b]

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Climate-...sofInaction.pdf
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...e_change_5.php

[viking31]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 15 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]332979[/snapback]</div>

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Cl...ofInaction.pdf
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/cl...te_change_5.php[/url]
[/b]

Some more notable quotes from some well respected institutions, various scientists, geniuses, and world leaders (both despised and loved in history) here. Many of these people have directly influenced our lives today.

Even your beloved Carl Sagan (for whom I have immense respect) stated

”if Saddam lights the wells on fire we’re all going to freeze!"
Carl Sagan[/b]

Rick
#4 2006 with optional anti-end of the world emissions package

[Mirza]

My personal favorite from that website:

«Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES.»
George Bush, 1988.

And speaking of Iraq

«There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.»
General Tommy Franks, March 22nd, 2003.

[pault842]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 15 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]332979[/snapback]</div>

If nothing is done to slow the process of warming, the grandchildren of today's young adults will inherit a world crippled by food and water shortages, extreme and variable weather, extinctions and other ecosystem damages, and a growing danger of an even more severe catastrophe.
[/b]

Most of these guys sound like Chicken Little to me. We've been hearing different versions of the disaster around the corner for many years. Scientific truth is more complicated then the hype we are hearing today.

[glenhead]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 15 2006, 09:04 PM) [snapback]333238[/snapback]</div>

And speaking of Iraq

«There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.»
General Tommy Franks, March 22nd, 2003.
[/b]

And speaking of Iraq

Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton:. "In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes)."

Bill Clinton, speaking in 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program."

Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, at the same time: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Oct 17 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]334146[/snapback]</div>

And speaking of Iraq
[/b]

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

In a letter to the new president, a group of Democratic senators led by Bob Graham declared: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier: "Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

And here is Mr. Gore again, in 2002: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

John Kerry, also speaking in 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy, also in 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Robert Byrd, also in 2002: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

[member]

If nothing is done to slow the process of warming, the grandchildren of today's young adults will inherit a world crippled by food and water shortages, extreme and variable weather, extinctions and other ecosystem damages, and a growing danger of an even more severe catastrophe.
[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pault842 @ Oct 17 2006, 10:56 AM) [snapback]333978[/snapback]</div>

Most of these guys sound like Chicken Little to me. We've been hearing different versions of the disaster around the corner for many years. Scientific truth is more complicated then the hype we are hearing today.
[/b]

This is actually not far off, and if off at all, only in time.

If you want evidence of climate shift, look at expanding desertification in Africa. This has been a growing problem, and a primary cause of conflict and starvation.

Variable climate and weather - the examples are too numerous to mention, although some you should care about is increased storm intensity in the SE US, persistant droughts in SW and Western US - a primary cause of the increased forest fires.

The last species I saw endangered was a fish that lives in the aquifer of the US SW, only 200 left. Lots more of examples if you read Nature or Science magazines. (generally regarded as Scientific Truth)

[Mirza]

LOL, some of you actually think I care about the Dems.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 15 2006, 08:02 AM) [snapback]332979[/snapback]</div>

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Climate-...sofInaction.pdf
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...e_change_5.php
[/b]

I'm not sure how a world of starvation and water shortage with extreme weather varies from today (or the past -pick your number - of milennia).

BTW - "half the cost of Kyoto, could buy clean water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for every person in the world." Link

But the alarmists would rather have Kyoto and the resulting immeasurable reduction in temperature it will bring.

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 23 2006, 12:43 AM) [snapback]336667[/snapback]</div>

BTW - "half the cost of Kyoto, could buy clean water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for every person in the world." Link
[/b]

But you need stability to provide the food and water. We have plenty of food to distribute. That's not the problem. Increased political instability, brought on by resource competition will make it more and more difficult to accomplish the stated goal.

Kyoto isnt' going to work anyway for the same reason that cartels don't work. Canada's CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since 1990 and are going to get much worse as they get serious about increasing their oil sand production. Their rate of CO2 production increase is much higher than in the US and they've signed on with the bloody protocol.

That doesn't mean that we should do nothing or rely soley on the market to solve the problem. The free market isn't equipped to handle such long term issues. That requires far-sighted policy. Americans are demanding cleaner energy and support renewables Republicans and Democrats alike. What's needed is continued R&D and a level playing field. Fossil fuels enjoy subsidies that renewables can only dream about. That needs to end. Either get rid of the subsidies or fund renewables in a like manner. Fund and encourage effciency. It's the most cost effectiive strategy anyways.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 23 2006, 09:22 AM) [snapback]336779[/snapback]</div>

Kyoto isnt' going to work anyway for the same reason that cartels don't work...

That doesn't mean that we should do nothing or rely soley on the market to solve the problem... Fund and encourage effciency. It's the most cost effectiive strategy anyways.
[/b]

I agree Tripp.