..I'm glad I'm leaving in 2099
Posted on 11/29/2007 5:47:44 PM PST by george76
They are getting desperate to try and enact as much of the glo-bull warming agenda as they can before they are as discredited and ignored, like they always are.
“Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that ‘liberals’ will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly.”
- John Ray, Greenie Watch
We only have to wait 93 more years ?
Sobering.
A deliberate statement of their intent though. (Wonder how/why he screwed up and admitted it out loud....)
One wonders how much money Tufts charged for this ‘study’ ?
Columbia has always home to the lunatic left-wing fringe, no surprises there.
I’d like to see some insurance being sold - let the market (and money) talk, and let b.s. walk.
“Climate change may cost Florida $345 billion a year: study”
Only if the Democrats were in charge.
A New York-based environmental group, Environmental Defense, commissioned the Tufts study.
Of course, it is the enviros who CLAIM that it is the “oil companies” who have paid for scientists to create studies refuting AGW theories....
I note that he is predicting 10 deg F (5 C) by the end of the century, but nobody else (ANYWHERE) is predicting anything more than 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer. And even 5 deg C WILL NOT melt enough water anywhere to flood Florida.
So how can he claim Florida is going to go under (by some unspecified amount (Greater than 30+ feet apparently) ....
The UN itself (in all their exaggerations) is only expecting 10-28 INCHES of water rise inm two centuries - and that only IF temps go up to their maximum level.
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
..I'm glad I'm leaving in 2099
Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.”
- William Gray, Sept. 12, 2005
Charlie Crist will eat this up!
what are the dates/links to those quotes without me lazily havin to google them?
reason i axe is i am an info bundler for the un-informed an that’s why I frequent FR
I’ve always been a little suspect about places where there is a need to build the houses on stilts.
Semper Fi,
From Tufts University magazine:
Priceless
On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing
Frank Ackerman & Lisa Heinzerling
The New press
The value of a non-fatal case of chronic bronchitis? $260,000. The value of preserving 60 million acres of national forest? $219,000. The value of a human life? Priceless? Think again—$3.7 million under the current administration. It sounds strange to put a cost on these things, but that is just what the government does before it takes action to protect health, safety, or the environment. In Priceless, Frank Ackerman, an economist at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts, and Lisa Heinzerling, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, debunk the use of cost-benefit analysis and the misguided logic used to defend it. Here, Ackerman describes what is essentially wrong with placing a monetary value on everything from an IQ point to a human life.
How much would you pay to ensure that your child grows up without mental retardation caused by lead poisoning? How much would you pay to prevent air pollution that could kill your parents? As absurd and offensive as these questions may be, cost-benefit analysis requires precise numerical answers. The great fear among many economists, and particularly those in the Bush administration, is that we might spend too much protecting you and your family from environmental harm. If we knew exactly what your health is worth to you, then we could in theory fine-tune environmental protection to spend just enough, but not too much.
“The fundamental mistake lies in believing that these impossible questions are necessary for good regulation. The first wave of modern environmental regulations, adopted in the 1970s and early 1980s, mandated protection of clean air, clean water, workplace safety, and many other goals—all without benefit of cost-benefit analysis, and all at perfectly affordable costs. We are all healthier and safer today as a result, and we did not bankrupt ourselves in the process.
“Most of the costs in a cost-benefit analysis are incurred by private business—that is, by polluters who are forced to stop polluting. There is no fixed national budget for environmental protection that is allocated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. If we spend less on one regulation, we do not automatically spend more on another. So there is no need for absurd questions about the monetary value of life and health.”
So this “economist” at Tufts University claims outright that the entire cost of every safety and environmental change since Nixon began the EPA is “perfectly affordable” ......
A New York-based environmental group, Environmental Defense, commissioned the Tufts study
lol...excellent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.