<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18854">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>From Australia's Herald Sun:<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<P>President Chavez brought the house down. </P>
<P>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. </P>
<P><A
title="When he said there was athat ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening"
href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/penny-wong-jeered-hugo-chavez-cheered/story-e6frgczf-1225811179614"><FONT
color=#000000 face=Tahoma>When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in
the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was
deafening</FONT></A>. </P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>…</P>
<P>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. </P>
<P>“When <A
title="these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions"
href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/17/2774069.htm?section=world"><FONT
color=#000000 face=Tahoma>these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their
dangerous emissions</FONT></A>, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing
sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>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. </P>
<P>g</P></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; 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=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Moscow Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:24
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Nobel Economist
Krugman on Anthropogenic Warming: "Youhave to guard against the substantial
possibility of reallycatastrophic change."</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>"You have to guard against the substantial possibility of really
catastrophic change." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Fareed Zakaria commented during the same discussion:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"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?"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html</A><BR>------------------</DIV>
<DIV>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 ( <A
href="http://randall.physics.harvard.edu/RandallCV/gravitywhere.htm">http://randall.physics.harvard.edu/RandallCV/gravitywhere.htm</A> )
is not "settled." I'm not going to bet against gravity, though, given
the unpleasant consequences that might result. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>---------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>That's huge. That means
that you start working on all
fronts.<BR>------------------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>