<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>By solution I was thinking more of a fission
powered device that would suck up excess greenhouse gas emissions and turn them
into little brightly colored pellets that hippies could string together and sell
at hemp festivals. This would effectively solve two problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=starbliss@gmail.com href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@roadrunner.com
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">g. crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=lfalen@turbonet.com
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A> ; <A
title=privatejf32@hotmail.com href="mailto:privatejf32@hotmail.com">J Ford</A>
; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, October 20, 2007 8:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Scientific
Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 10/20/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>g.
crabtree</B> <<A onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com " target=_blank>jampot@roadrunner.com
</A>> wrote:</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't know if
human induced global warming is a reality or not. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>...enough with the endless doomsday carping that
we have been subjected to for the past few years. We have heard you. Endless
repetition is not a solution. How about if the eggheads get together with
the real heroes of the information age, the engineers and come up with
something that more closely resembles a solution. (I mean a real solution. Not
the walk, ride a bike, and car pool eye wash) I'd rather listen to a few years
of here's the plan, guys, then anymore repetitions of here's the problem.
</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> -------------</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Did you read the information from the Stern Report, on solutions to
slowing greenhouse gas emissions, that was offered in the very post that you
responded to above with your criticisms? You criticize that "endless
repetition is not a solution," while not even acknowledging the detailed
economic and technological means to address the problem of human induced
global warming, that the Stern Report addressed. I wonder if you
sincerely are interested in solutions to human induced global warming, given
you do not believe there is sufficient evidence it even is a problem, as you
state above. And this was exactly the main point of my post that you
responded to... How can people be motivated to push for solutions to a problem
they do not believe exists? The effort just to convince people there is
a significant problem is thus a major part of the solution. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Below read information from the Stern Report, and also from a
report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, about solutions to lowering
greenhouse gas emissions:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Stern Report:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1935209,00.html">http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1935209,00.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm">http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
</A></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><B>Recommended actions</B>
<P><B>·</B> Three elements of policy are required for an effective response:
carbon pricing, technology policy and energy efficiency.
<P><B>·</B> Carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation,
will show people the full social costs of their actions. The aim should be a
global carbon price across countries and sectors.
<P><B>·</B> Emissions trading schemes, like that operating across the EU,
should be expanded and linked.
<P><B>·</B> Technology policy should drive the large-scale development and use
of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products.
<P><B>·</B> Globally, support for energy research and development should at
least double; support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies should be
increased my up to five times.
<P><B>·</B> International product standards could be introduced.
<P><B>·</B> Large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best
ways to curb deforestation should be started very quickly.
<P><B>·</B> Climate change should be fully integrated into development policy,
and rich countries should honour pledges to increase support through overseas
development assistance.
<P><B>·</B> International funding should support improved regional information
on climate change impacts.
<P><B>·</B> International funding should go into researching new crop
varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.
<P><B>Economic impacts</B>
<P><B>·</B> The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the
costs.
<P><B>·</B> Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP
each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more
than 20% of GDP.
<P><B>·</B> The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of
global GDP; people could be charged more for carbon-intensive goods.
<P><B>·</B> Each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but
emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a tonne.
<P><B>·</B> Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit
the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.
<P><B>·</B> By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at
least $500bn.
<P><B>·</B> What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over
the next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can have a
profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.</P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P></DIV>
<DIV>------------------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>Union of Concerned Scientist Report on global warming science and the
Northeast USA, solutions to problem:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/">http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/economists-reduce-emissions.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/economists-reduce-emissions.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--------------</DIV>
<DIV>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>----- Original Message ----- </SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=starbliss@gmail.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target=_blank>Ted Moffett</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lfalen@turbonet.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target=_blank>lfalen</A> ; <A
title=privatejf32@hotmail.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:privatejf32@hotmail.com" target=_blank>J Ford</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank>vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:07
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Scientific
Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All-</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One of the main road blocks that must be addressed to solve the
global warming crisis, is the large number of people who, for one reason
or another, do not accept that there is an overwhelming scientific
consensus that significant action is necessary to
prevent substantive negative impacts. The choices these
people make as consumers, in lifestyle, and as voters, are hampering
efforts to mitigate this crisis. They would rather not bother
to study the science, or only choose to believe the small minority of
scientists who insist the consensus is in error. Or maybe they don't
believe the scientific community or the scientific method is to be
trusted, or is reliable. Or for many, even if they fully acknowledge
the problem, they are too dependent on their current lifestyle to make the
changes required to transition away from a fossil fuel/energy dependent
way of living. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For those who insist they do not believe the scientific
consensus, the hundreds of scientists who have spent years of their life
studying this issue, and have emphatically concluded that human emissions
are dangerously warming the planet, it appears that reasoning with a brick
wall might be more rewarding... At least the bricks will not respond
in a manner that insults a person's intelligence. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Studying the minority views of the scientists who reject the
scientific consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the
planet is necessary to continue to test the veracity of the
consensus. Indeed, as this process of skepticism on this issue
continues, the self corrective mechanism of replicatability of
findings by other scientists, perhaps the most fundamental principle of
the scientific method, to insure that the science on this issue is not
corrupt, fabricated, politically biased, etc., the consensus that
human emissions are dangerously warming the planet has only
increased. And the claim that human induced global warming will not
have drastic consequences is more and more an incredible position. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the bottom of the PDF document at the first link below are
approximately 70 published papers on climate science that support the
conclusions on the science of climate change in the Stern Report. No
doubt Al Gore and other environmental loonies have conspired with
these scientists in political subversion to spread socialism and
other dastardly nefarious plots, in a vast global cabal to undermine
the free market system, using global warming as a boogeyman to scare the
bejezzus out of the naive gullible hoi polloi. <BR> </DIV>
<DIV>And I've fallen for it!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf"
target=_blank><STRONG>Chapter 1: The science of climate change</STRONG>
</A>:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf"
target=_blank>http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf
</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Stern Review on the economics of climate change:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm"
target=_blank>http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
</A></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>--------------</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 10/19/07, <B
class=gmail_sendername>lfalen</B> <<A
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com"
target=_blank>lfalen@turbonet.com</A>> wrote: </SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted<BR>I
don't think that you should so easily dismiss George Willl's
comments. He is just a journalist and a lay person on global
waming but Lomberg whow he sites is a scientist and his
statements should be taken seriously. Global warming has plusses an
minuses as Will pointed out. Not everything is negative. Glogal warming
by itself may be a benefit overall. What problems there are are better
solved by the free market system(with some government guide lines) not
draconian government regulation which would stifle the economy. This is
not to say we should not be concerned about air pollution. It is a
problem and measures should be taken to curtail it. There has already
been some improvement in this area. As an example, in the
1960"s you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly ever smell it
from just acrose the river. Efforts to find cleaner fuel
should be continued. <BR>Roger</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>-----------------</DIV>
<DIV>Ok, I'm going to bite on this one.<BR><BR>As much as I really hate
the nay-sayers regarding the "global warming" -so-called-issue, I'd like
to ask this:<BR><BR>IF the ice caps are melting as quickly as is being
stated, (a) doesn't this put more water into the atmospher, i.e., through
evaporation; (b) doesn't this mean there will be more water to fall as
rain; (c) the areas that are experiencing drought right now - won't they
in fact see an increase in water through rain and/or the swelling of
rivers, creeks, water-ways; (d) what are the pro/cons of using ocean
water, processing it and putting it into pipes as un-salted water for
communities in need? I see adds where a company is saying they
"capture" billions of gallons of water a year for use - in what way?
<BR><BR>And no, I really don't care to get into it about the "global
warming" alarmists. I'm just asking the above
questions.<BR><BR>Thank you.<BR><BR>J :]<BR> </DIV><BR></DIV>
<P></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>