Quote:
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Then in 1991, Dr. Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos, a scientific journal, with two illustrious colleagues, Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite.
Entitled "What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap," the article argued that decades of research could be required for the consequences of increased carbon dioxide to be understood, and laid out the harm that could come of acting recklessly: "Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that '... those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits ... . ' It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. 'Look before you leap' may still be good advice."
|
The last thing the establishment want is for anyone to link CO2 reduction measures with reduced industrial output, jobs, food, third world starvation and death. All of this is going to happen with the measures that they are putting into place. It's not like the GW theory of whether it might or might not get warmer or colder, reducing CO2 will be guaranteed to do these things.
So really what does that make a climate change campaigner into? Especially when lives are at risk. Anyone who was honest and had an ounce of common sense, and especially so-called experts can not deny that we will not be able to support the current population on the reduced levels of industrial output that are being proposed. We are not talking a few percent here; we are talking drastic measures as we head towards 2050, which is some kind of target date they have set into their plans. For example the government in the UK recently suggested all out energy could come from wind power. Just think about the lunacy of that statement for a moment. They did not say some, they said all of it. I had to reread it as I admit I didn't believe what I had read the first time.