[Vision2020] Nobel Economist Krugman on Anthropogenic Warming: "Youhave to guard against the substantial possibility of reallycatastrophic change."

[g. crabtree]

>From Australia's Herald Sun:

President Chavez brought the house down. 

When he said the process in Copenhagen was "not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn't that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship.down with imperial dictatorships" he got a rousing round of applause. 

When he said there was a "silent and terrible ghost in the room" and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening. 

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion - 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - "our revolution seeks to help all people.socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that's the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us." He won a standing ovation.

.

The anti-capitalist theme was picked up on by Mr. Mugabe, Zimbabwe's veteran President, who is the target of Western sanctions over alleged human rights abuses. 

"When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.



You really think that these people have our best interests in mind? More and more the whole AGW movement  reveals itself to have less of a benevolent "save the planet" agenda and more of a drag down the West and redistribute its wealth ideology. 

g

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Moffett 
  To: Moscow Vision 2020 
  Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:24 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Nobel Economist Krugman on Anthropogenic Warming: "Youhave to guard against the substantial possibility of reallycatastrophic change."


  "You have to guard against the substantial possibility of really catastrophic change."  

  Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman speaking about anthropogenic climate change on Fareed Zakaria's "GPS" (Global Public Square) on CNN last Sunday, Dec. 13.

  Fareed Zakaria commented during the same discussion:

  "Many of the estimates of what it would take to make reasonable progress on limiting carbon emissions hover around one percent of global GDP. If that sounds high, consider this. Over the past year, we have spent 5 percent of global GDP sorting out the global financial meltdown. Can we not spend one-fifth of that to ensure against a climate catastrophe?"

  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html
  ------------------
  In discussions about the reliability of the science revealing human impacts on climate, some claim that significant action to address the problem should not be taken till the science is "settled," whatever that exactly means, given that a rigorous and thoroughgoing skeptic can construct rational arguments to question most any theory.  It is well known that modern physics reveals unanswered questions and theoretical problems with gravity, so the science on the theory of gravity ( http://randall.physics.harvard.edu/RandallCV/gravitywhere.htm ) is not "settled."  I'm not going to bet against gravity, though, given the unpleasant consequences that might result.  

  Though a skeptic can argue rationally for doubt about human impacts on climate, what are the odds that humans are altering climate from greenhouse gas emissions (and other impacts) based on well researched science from numerous scientific organizations and thousands of scientists around the world, and the consequences of not significantly addressing the problem if human impacts continue to increase?

  If there is a 90% chance of a hurricane flooding a major city, given the potential for catastrophic damage, do you spend money to construct flood protection systems?  If there is a 90% chance that human impacts on climate will result in the world's coastlines flooding major cities and harbors around the world from sea level rise, with immense economic and human costs, is it prudent to take measures to lessen this potential catastrophe?

  Some skeptics would continue to debate the science regarding human impacts on climate as ocean levels rise 20 feet from Greenland and Antarctica melting, all along insisting that natural variables could be the cause.  

  I agree with Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, that in considering action to address anthropogenic warming, we should "guard against the substantial possibility of really catastrophic change."

  ---------------------------------
  At website below is a transcript of a discussion on Fareed Zakaria's "GPS" on CNN last Sunday, Dec. 13, 2009, with economists Bjorn Lomborg and Paul Krugman, regarding anthropogenic climate change, and how to address it.  Neither Lomborg or Krugman disputed that humans are altering climate, but they disagreed on the correct approach to addressing it:

  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html

  KRUGMAN: Where we are now on the climate science is that some studies -- quite a few of them -- are now suggesting the possibility of really catastrophic warming, really catastrophic warming.

  And a fundamental principle here is that you don't look at the average of the studies. You look at the high-end risks, because that's where the real -- that's what you have to guard against. You have to guard against the substantial possibility of really catastrophic change.

  That means that you don't say, well, this is a small problem. That's not what these are saying. We have a lot of studies now saying that we're looking at something like a nine degrees Fahrenheit rise in temperatures by the end of the 21st century.

  That's huge. That means that you start working on all fronts.
  ------------------------------------------
  Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


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


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091217/e76ddd20/attachment-0001.html