[george76]

We are doomed...by 2100.

/s

.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

I’ve always been a little suspect about places where there is a need to build the houses on stilts.

Semper Fi,

[Robert A Cook PE]

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” ......

[rbg81]

A New York-based environmental group, Environmental Defense, commissioned the Tufts study

---

Yeah...I’m sure this environmental defense group made it clear to Tufts exactly what they wanted to see for results. And if Tufts didn’t comply, it would find itself blacklisted by everyone from this bunch of stoodges to the UN. No reason for bias there. [/sarc]

[Cementjungle]

It’ll be fun to go scuba diving in all those underwater Miami buildings.

[Hot Tabasco]

Isn’t Florida basically reclaimed swampland anyway?

[olezip]

If nothing is done to combat global warming, two of Florida's nuclear power plants, three of its prisons and 1,362 hotels, motels and inns will be under water by 2100, a study released on Wednesday said.

Nothing can be done to combat global warming or global cooling. Climate change is caused by the Sun. All we can do is plan to adjust to whatever climate change we experience. The study, based on a false premise, can concluded absolutely anything it wishes to conclude; the possibilities are endless.

[mowowie]

My calculations have it at around 2103.
I have no idea where these guys get their numbers from.

[Paladin2]

Fla. avg height above sea level = 12 feet. Just step away from the coast (move to Ga./Ala.)

[Calvin Locke]

Rush Limbaugh was talking about a UK profressor that collected over 600 links or so to GW stories.

He ran down the list of titles, and GW was blamed when stuff happened, and when the same stuff didn't happen.

[ricks_place]

Underwear will be a thing of the past by the 22nd Century.

The College of Wooster - Independent Study

Rachel Ann Renkes - Playboy, Panties, and Push-Up Bras: A Brief Peek at the Evolution of Underwear (history)

At first glance, many people doubted the scholarly nature of my I.S. on the history and evolution of underwear. I quickly learned that many books have been written on this extensive subject. I am glad that I took my adviser, Alphine Jefferson, up on the idea, because my topic provided me with much laughter and amusement throughout the I.S. process.

Underclothes trace back four thousand years and have changed a great deal in appearance, form, and purpose, along with society. One reason for wearing underwear was to alter the body shape: Many undergarments have either condensed or expanded the body, many times painfully and with distortion. Underwear also emphasized class distinctions: poor, working women could not wear the tight, constricting corsets and large crinoline hoop skirts and still function in their homes...

[jimfree]

The uncertainty contained in a 5 or 10 year economic forecast is quite large. Combining 93-year economic and climate forecasts as though predicting tomorrow’s noon hour temperature creates a new height for me in irresponsible journalism.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

This settles it. We only have to wait 93 more years before this global warming nonsense is disproved.

[Holicheese]

I thought it was 10 years (20 years ago) and now its 2100?
What do I care, I will be dead!