15 Year Old Creates Website To Take On An Inconvenient Truth

[red states rule]

15 year old Kristen Byrnes created a website for extra credit in her Honors Earth Sciences class and is taking on the subject of global warming, and was eventually asked to examine the veracity of Al Gore's schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

On her site, she pointed out what few in the media have - the hype and exaggeration of the facts

Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth does indeed have some correct facts, but as he even says himself, sometimes you have to over-exaggerate to send the message to people:

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.


Here is the link to her site. Remember the kid is only 15

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

 

[red states rule]

Thursday Funnies: Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Youth’ Blames Global Warming on Kids
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 17, 2007 - 16:16.
A few weeks ago, NewsBusters reported on the environmental think tank that believes having too many children is bad for the planet.

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel must have gotten wind of this daffy position, for his crew (time unknown) created a wonderful parody of Al Gore’s schlockumentary wherein the former vice president ties the global warming problem to various behaviors by children.

Entitled “An Inconvenient Youth,” this brief segment is guaranteed to even get a chuckle out of Gore sycophants like Laurie David and Sheryl Crow.

However, the reader is cautioned that this is a bit raw, and possibly offensive though well-intentioned (video available here, grateful h/t to NBer Hero Squad).

Enjoy.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12826

 

[Mr.Conley]

HAHA, pathetic.

What a failure. Exploiting ignorant 15 year olds. WOW

 

[red states rule]

HAHA, pathetic.

What a failure. Exploiting ignorant 15 year olds. WOW

Libs have been doing that for many years - with the liberal indoctrination centers they call public schools

This 9th grader is the exception rather then the rule

 

[Creek_George]

Libs have been doing that for many years - with the liberal indoctrination centers they call public schools

This 9th grader is the exception rather then the rule

What's next?...15 year olds prove the Iraq War is worth staying the course?

We as the human race...if we are even responsible for 2% of the global warming taking place..Should do our part to combat it.

The bottom line..is we don't wana breath this shit in that's responsible for it in our home...Open up the windows..and let it outside?

I hope I'm right here...that your average 15 year old with half a brain..who cares about this planet..Knows alot more than the one who posted this silly post,when it comes to our enviroment.

Polution is catching up....That's what's happening..In the air..and in our soil.

There is nothing political when it comes to the air we breath...Our planet.

This kid is a 15 year old retard..who pursueded other kids to disagree...Your average adult who steps outside each day..is begining to wonder..see changes...and maybe someday will take part in trying to make a difference.

The parents of this child should talk to him....Unless Red States Rule is his father....

Our planet can handle the polution we are pumping out....because a 15 year old says Gore is wrong.

That show could have been 80% lies...Enough facts are on the table to say otherwise...

Red States Rule...You are lucky Gore is not running again..

Creek

 

[red states rule]

So the 15 year old is a retard?

Why? Because she disagreeses with the hysteria over global warming?

 

[lieberalism]

sniff, water vapor is getting in our soils

 

[red states rule]

Australian Magazine Editor Slams Al Gore’s ‘Live Earth’ Concerts
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 20, 2007 - 12:56.
Have you noticed that most of the articles you see that are skeptical about man’s role in climate change come from foreign publications based in countries like Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada?

Why do you think that is?

Are the American press too emotionally attached to the issue -- and, in particular, the chief spokesman, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore -- to even consider the possibility that the debate isn't over, and that their role as journalists is supposed to be to further discussion rather than squelch it?

While you ponder, an editor for Australia’s The Age, Melanie Griffin, published an absolutely delicious article Sunday slamming the upcoming "Live Earth" concerts about to be thrown in the name of global warming alarmism (emphasis added throughout):

Our $99 concert tickets, which I am sure will be printed on recycled paper, do not go towards any concrete measures to halt global warming, or to repair any damage done to the Earth. The proceeds don't go directly to purchasing solar batteries for anyone or subsidising public transport anywhere. The event just goes to raising awareness. And right now?

That's not only a waste of time but a gross indulgence. It's just a green rubber bracelet to string on your arm next to the white rubber band that will magically make poverty history, and the yellow one that cures cancer.

How delicious. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if American media could be so honest about this event rather than sycophantly gushing over the host?

Regardless of the answer, Griffin was just getting warmed up:

Instead, the funds from this fun fest will underwrite yet another foundation dedicated to raising our greenie consciousness.

It strikes me that the amount of goodwill, money, political nous and energy being funnelled into these concerts could be put to better use lobbying some of the sponsors - and participants - to rein in their own consumption.

Yes, I know the organisers of the nine concerts on six continents will be planting another Amazon of trees to offset the carbon spewed forth by all the amplifiers and lights and hydraulics and TV cameras and private jets required to broadcast Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers and Duran Duran and the reunited Crowded House to the world, singing that green is good.

But it will be years before any of those tree plantations can offset the damage of a massive ego-boosting exercise that is not only redundant, but harmful.

Exactly, Melanie. But, as you point out, the hypocrisy runs even deeper:

It's also about us, the punters who troop along to these benefits that we might stand up and be counted. Being counted is not worth squat. We might catch public transport to these gigs, although flying to Sydney to see Neil Finn at the Opera House is not a very green way to go. But we're still colluding in a massive production of greenhouse gases in order to raise awareness of the damage done.

It's worse than pointless.

Dr Keith Tovey, a climate change researcher from the University of East Anglia, estimated that the Wembley concert alone could churn out 3000 tonnes of carbon.

Exactly. But, Griffin’s concluding questions are what should be asked by America’s media, but never will be:

What if all those rock groups donated serious cash to a fund that subsidised alternative energy sources?

What if everyone stayed home?

What if all 2 billion turned off the TV and did something unplugged for once?

Yes, Melanie, what if?

Of course, the Global Warmingest-in-Chief wouldn’t be able to take to the stage to cheering international crowds that way. And, in the end, although our media refuse to recognize it, that’s what it’s all about.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12886

 

[Vintij]

lol. The graphs on this website, are all hand drawn. Using microsoft paint. They are "estimations" of a 15 year old. Why are we suppose to take this seriously when the graphs look like a kindergarden art class. And his bibliography is highly fragmented, it looks as though he just named a bunch of random sites. Not to mention, the sites that he did name, do not support his "estimation" on how warming should have been constant over the last 40 years if it was due to greenhouse gasses. Infact, some of those sites have nothing to do with his project, they just prove that global cooling does exist, which is already accepted even among Global warming supporters.

Only RSR would pull something like this out of his ass. It looks like some kid copy and pasted a LARGE chunk of facts into his project, and then sort of drew in his own opinion of what should have happend.

Tell me again, why should we care what a 15 year old thinks should have happend to the climate? He is probably going to start another project with RSR, on what he thinks is going to happen in the new Harry Potter movie.
lol

 

[Dirt McGirt]

What's next?...15 year olds prove the Iraq War is worth staying the course?

LMAO. Yeah, I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls....but that's funny.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

All you need to do is look at her sources. There's nothing new or exclusive about them. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Let her beat Al Gore in a debate and I'll consider it newsworthy.
-----------------------------------------------
**Note: The bibliography is still incomplete. I have linked as many as possible for your convenience.

Bibiliography:

Linked Sources

A1- MSU Science Homepage

A2- http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

A3- ScienceDaily: Cave Yields Treasure Trove Of Climatic History

A4- Oxygen-18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A5- http:academic.emperia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/fig19d.htm

A6- Wikipedia Carbon 14

A7- Isotopes

A8- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

A9- http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Mann.pdf

A10- NCPA | Study #279, Seabed Sediments

A11- http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

A12- July 2002 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics,

Published by the American Geophysical Union

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q.html

A13- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/albedo

A14- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

A15- The Big Bangs ! http://www.john-daly.com/bigbangs.htm

A16- Atmospheric ozone depletion by nuclear weapons testing

A17- CATALOG OF WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR TESTING

A18- http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm

A19- http://www.harding.edu/USER/jmfortner/WWW/HIST111HO15FrenchRevolutionWord.htm

A20-



Images

B1-http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html

B2- http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical10.jsp

B3- Wikipedia, Milankovitch Cycles

B4- MSU Science Homepage
B5- (East Anglia)

B6- Wikipedia Carbon 14

B7- Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B8- http://acept.la.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/reflection/reflection.shtml

B9- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

B10- http://www.john-daly.com/

B11- http://www.met.utah.edu/perry/METEO_3100_Handout1.pdf

B12- Mount Pinatubo, Philippines

B13- http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap2/Albedo.html

B14- Nuclear testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B15- http://www.etl.noaa.gov/about/review/aq/post/

B16- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve


Unlinked studies and sources

C1- Science @ NASA News Story, “Contrary Thermometers” July 21, 2000

C2- Williams, Armstrong, Ault and Stephenson 2005

C3- Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996

C4- Little Ice Age, Big Chill, History channel

C5- Heinrik Svensmark (2007) Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges

C6- Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle. Dr. Jan Veiser, University of Ottawa 2005

 

[wiggles]

Breaking: 14 year old says James Inhofe is "teh ghey."

 

[Vintij]

This just in, Running for presidential nomination as a republican....is......Dekota fanning. She is expected to bring better playground boarder patrol, and equal rights for everyone waiting in line for the monkey bars.

Look RSR. We dont want to play tether ball, and eat tator tots. We want answers.

 

[Psychoblues]

You got to be kidding?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Australian Magazine Editor Slams Al Gore’s ‘Live Earth’ Concerts
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 20, 2007 - 12:56.
Have you noticed that most of the articles you see that are skeptical about man’s role in climate change come from foreign publications based in countries like Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada?

Why do you think that is?

Are the American press too emotionally attached to the issue -- and, in particular, the chief spokesman, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore -- to even consider the possibility that the debate isn't over, and that their role as journalists is supposed to be to further discussion rather than squelch it?

While you ponder, an editor for Australia’s The Age, Melanie Griffin, published an absolutely delicious article Sunday slamming the upcoming "Live Earth" concerts about to be thrown in the name of global warming alarmism (emphasis added throughout):

Our $99 concert tickets, which I am sure will be printed on recycled paper, do not go towards any concrete measures to halt global warming, or to repair any damage done to the Earth. The proceeds don't go directly to purchasing solar batteries for anyone or subsidising public transport anywhere. The event just goes to raising awareness. And right now?

That's not only a waste of time but a gross indulgence. It's just a green rubber bracelet to string on your arm next to the white rubber band that will magically make poverty history, and the yellow one that cures cancer.

How delicious. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if American media could be so honest about this event rather than sycophantly gushing over the host?

Regardless of the answer, Griffin was just getting warmed up:

Instead, the funds from this fun fest will underwrite yet another foundation dedicated to raising our greenie consciousness.

It strikes me that the amount of goodwill, money, political nous and energy being funnelled into these concerts could be put to better use lobbying some of the sponsors - and participants - to rein in their own consumption.

Yes, I know the organisers of the nine concerts on six continents will be planting another Amazon of trees to offset the carbon spewed forth by all the amplifiers and lights and hydraulics and TV cameras and private jets required to broadcast Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers and Duran Duran and the reunited Crowded House to the world, singing that green is good.

But it will be years before any of those tree plantations can offset the damage of a massive ego-boosting exercise that is not only redundant, but harmful.

Exactly, Melanie. But, as you point out, the hypocrisy runs even deeper:

It's also about us, the punters who troop along to these benefits that we might stand up and be counted. Being counted is not worth squat. We might catch public transport to these gigs, although flying to Sydney to see Neil Finn at the Opera House is not a very green way to go. But we're still colluding in a massive production of greenhouse gases in order to raise awareness of the damage done.

It's worse than pointless.

Dr Keith Tovey, a climate change researcher from the University of East Anglia, estimated that the Wembley concert alone could churn out 3000 tonnes of carbon.

Exactly. But, Griffin’s concluding questions are what should be asked by America’s media, but never will be:

What if all those rock groups donated serious cash to a fund that subsidised alternative energy sources?

What if everyone stayed home?

What if all 2 billion turned off the TV and did something unplugged for once?

Yes, Melanie, what if?

Of course, the Global Warmingest-in-Chief wouldn’t be able to take to the stage to cheering international crowds that way. And, in the end, although our media refuse to recognize it, that’s what it’s all about.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12886

The ignorance expressed in these resourses of rsr are just so incredibly WRONG!!!!!!!!

 

[red states rule]

All you need to do is look at her sources. There's nothing new or exclusive about them. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Let her beat Al Gore in a debate and I'll consider it newsworthy.
-----------------------------------------------
**Note: The bibliography is still incomplete. I have linked as many as possible for your convenience.

Bibiliography:

Linked Sources

A1- MSU Science Homepage

A2- http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

A3- ScienceDaily: Cave Yields Treasure Trove Of Climatic History

A4- Oxygen-18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A5- http:academic.emperia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/fig19d.htm

A6- Wikipedia Carbon 14

A7- Isotopes

A8- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

A9- http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Mann.pdf

A10- NCPA | Study #279, Seabed Sediments

A11- http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

A12- July 2002 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics,

Published by the American Geophysical Union

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q.html

A13- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/albedo

A14- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

A15- The Big Bangs ! http://www.john-daly.com/bigbangs.htm

A16- Atmospheric ozone depletion by nuclear weapons testing

A17- CATALOG OF WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR TESTING

A18- http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm

A19- http://www.harding.edu/USER/jmfortner/WWW/HIST111HO15FrenchRevolutionWord.htm

A20-



Images

B1-http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html

B2- http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical10.jsp

B3- Wikipedia, Milankovitch Cycles

B4- MSU Science Homepage
B5- (East Anglia)

B6- Wikipedia Carbon 14

B7- Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B8- http://acept.la.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/reflection/reflection.shtml

B9- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

B10- http://www.john-daly.com/

B11- http://www.met.utah.edu/perry/METEO_3100_Handout1.pdf

B12- Mount Pinatubo, Philippines

B13- http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap2/Albedo.html

B14- Nuclear testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B15- http://www.etl.noaa.gov/about/review/aq/post/

B16- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve


Unlinked studies and sources

C1- Science @ NASA News Story, “Contrary Thermometers” July 21, 2000

C2- Williams, Armstrong, Ault and Stephenson 2005

C3- Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996

C4- Little Ice Age, Big Chill, History channel

C5- Heinrik Svensmark (2007) Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges

C6- Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle. Dr. Jan Veiser, University of Ottawa 2005

Lokking back on how well Gore is 2000 - the kid probably could beat him

 

[red states rule]

You got to be kidding?!?!?!?!?!?!?




The ignorance expressed in these resourses of rsr are just so incredibly WRONG!!!!!!!!

Global warming can be reduced, but at what cost?
By Laurie Goering



CHICAGO — In a United Nations report this month, scientists said the cost of aggressively tackling climate change was comparatively reasonable. By spending a little more than 0.1 percent of the world's income each year for 23 years, they say, greenhouse gases could be held nearly in check, avoiding the worst predicted environmental disasters.

The same day, Bush administration officials argued that the same aggressive effort would throw the world's economy into recession.

The reality, top climate economists say, is that cutting U.S. emissions sufficiently to hold greenhouse-gas concentrations at near-current levels soon could cost the United States twice as much per year as it is now spending on the war in Iraq. But, as the U.N. report essentially urges, spending $1 trillion a year worldwide over two decades to aggressively curb global warming could be a bargain in the long run.

"It isn't going to be cheap, but there's an awful lot we can do, and it doesn't break the bank, especially if we do it cleverly," argued Robert Socolow, a physicist, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University and a leading theorist on ways to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. "I don't see how we get a recession out of it."

For the United States, the most aggressive scenario in the new U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mitigation report — holding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to less than 500 parts per million, up from the current 380 parts per million — could cost $240 billion a year, or 2 percent of the nation's income, said Robert Mendelsohn, a climate-change economist at Yale University. The Iraq war, comparatively speaking, has cost a little less than $100 billion a year on average since it began in 2003.

That 2 percent of national income figure is much higher than the cost of 0.12 percent of world income quoted in the U.N. report because the United States is the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases and therefore has more work to do cutting them, Mendelsohn said. Many economists also say U.N. figures suggesting a moderate cost for limiting climate change assume that nations around the world would act quickly and in concert to target the problem, something political leaders say is highly unlikely.

Reducing greenhouse gases vigorously and quickly probably would push Americans' heating and electric bills up by 50 percent to 100 percent, said Jae Edmonds, a scientist and economist with the Joint Global Change Research Institute, based in Maryland. Gasoline prices would rise between 50 cents and $1 a gallon, he said.

Whether that is a cheap or expensive price to pay for cutting emissions is a matter of perspective, he said.

"Some might look at those numbers and say that's a pretty good buy to avoid the potential negative implications of climate change," he said. "Others might think those costs look high and say they'd rather go slower."

Choosing a sufficiently aggressive plan to stave off the worst effects of climate change without dire economic consequences is a complicated balancing act, economists say, particularly because so many variables remain unknown.

Too vigorous a worldwide campaign could backfire, hurting economic growth and alienating key greenhouse-gas producers. But doing too little too slowly might waste a crucial opportunity to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts of global warming and to dodge greater costs in the future.

The right answer, many economists suggest, is to act quickly to launch tests of potentially useful technology and programs worldwide, then rapidly scale up those that work.

In Mendelsohn's view, the most aggressive level of greenhouse-gas cuts promoted in the U.N. report is "too radical a recommendation to be supported by mainstream economics." Because efforts to control greenhouse gases will be effective only if all of the world's major producers take part, "by starting with a crash program you ensure a lot of countries are not going to join in," he said.

However, "you don't want to get sucked into thinking the only choice is to do the crash program or nothing at all," he said.

He suggests that a much more modest target — limiting atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to perhaps 640 to 750 parts per million — would cost the United States a tenth as much as the most aggressive scenario outlined in the U.N. report. Worldwide, the cost would fall by about half, according to the report. Other scientists and economists say holding greenhouse-gas concentrations to about 550 parts per million, at somewhat higher cost, is a better option.

Under Mendelsohn's scenario, average global temperatures would be expected to rise by 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, according to the U.N. panel, compared with about 3 to 6 degrees under the most aggressive program.

Because no one knows what temperature increase might trigger disastrous environmental problems — large sea-level rises, worsening flooding and droughts, a disruption of ocean circulation patterns — the lower range of temperature increases is generally thought to be safer.

Development of new technology and creative use of existing technology potentially could cut the costs of reducing emissions dramatically. Because plants draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when they grow, using plant fuels rather than fossil fuels effectively cuts emissions of greenhouse gases, Edmonds said.

If engineers are able to find efficient ways to use plants to create fuel and then capture carbon dioxide released from the smokestacks of plant-fueled power stations and pump it into storage underground, the world could potentially lower levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere while generating power.

But racing too quickly toward renewable energy and other efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions could have problematic consequences as well, Mendelsohn warned.

Using more nuclear power, he said, will lead to renewed concerns about what to do with nuclear waste. Planting billions of acres of new crops for biofuels could lead to accelerating deforestation in places such as Brazil and Indonesia. And efforts to boost hydroelectric generation could result in many of the world's last wild rivers being dammed.

David O'Reilly, the chief executive of Chevron, points to a Senate bill calling on the Energy Department to develop a plan to cut gasoline consumption by 20 percent by 2017, 35 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by 2030, largely by substituting ethanol and other renewable fuels.

Under the Senate proposal, the amount of alternative fuels used in U.S. motor vehicles would rise to 8.5 billion gallons by 2008 and 36 billion gallons by 2022.

The problem, O'Reilly said, is that U.S. farmers cannot currently produce enough corn to make more than 15 billion gallons of fuel. Producing 36 billion gallons would require huge corn imports or a massive overhaul of the U.S. agricultural economy. And Chevron is not just protecting its fossil-fuels turf; the company already produces 70 percent of the ethanol made in the United States. "We're dealing with a massive economy and a massive energy infrastructure that was developed to supply this economy," O'Reilly said. "You can't turn that around in just a couple of years."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003715537_warmingcosts21.html

 

[wiggles]

Global warming can be reduced, but at what cost?
By Laurie Goering



CHICAGO — In a United Nations report this month, scientists said the cost of aggressively tackling climate change was comparatively reasonable. By spending a little more than 0.1 percent of the world's income each year for 23 years, they say, greenhouse gases could be held nearly in check, avoiding the worst predicted environmental disasters.

The same day, Bush administration officials argued that the same aggressive effort would throw the world's economy into recession.

The reality, top climate economists say, is that cutting U.S. emissions sufficiently to hold greenhouse-gas concentrations at near-current levels soon could cost the United States twice as much per year as it is now spending on the war in Iraq. But, as the U.N. report essentially urges, spending $1 trillion a year worldwide over two decades to aggressively curb global warming could be a bargain in the long run.

"It isn't going to be cheap, but there's an awful lot we can do, and it doesn't break the bank, especially if we do it cleverly," argued Robert Socolow, a physicist, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University and a leading theorist on ways to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. "I don't see how we get a recession out of it."

For the United States, the most aggressive scenario in the new U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mitigation report — holding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to less than 500 parts per million, up from the current 380 parts per million — could cost $240 billion a year, or 2 percent of the nation's income, said Robert Mendelsohn, a climate-change economist at Yale University. The Iraq war, comparatively speaking, has cost a little less than $100 billion a year on average since it began in 2003.

That 2 percent of national income figure is much higher than the cost of 0.12 percent of world income quoted in the U.N. report because the United States is the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases and therefore has more work to do cutting them, Mendelsohn said. Many economists also say U.N. figures suggesting a moderate cost for limiting climate change assume that nations around the world would act quickly and in concert to target the problem, something political leaders say is highly unlikely.

Reducing greenhouse gases vigorously and quickly probably would push Americans' heating and electric bills up by 50 percent to 100 percent, said Jae Edmonds, a scientist and economist with the Joint Global Change Research Institute, based in Maryland. Gasoline prices would rise between 50 cents and $1 a gallon, he said.

Whether that is a cheap or expensive price to pay for cutting emissions is a matter of perspective, he said.

"Some might look at those numbers and say that's a pretty good buy to avoid the potential negative implications of climate change," he said. "Others might think those costs look high and say they'd rather go slower."

Choosing a sufficiently aggressive plan to stave off the worst effects of climate change without dire economic consequences is a complicated balancing act, economists say, particularly because so many variables remain unknown.

Too vigorous a worldwide campaign could backfire, hurting economic growth and alienating key greenhouse-gas producers. But doing too little too slowly might waste a crucial opportunity to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts of global warming and to dodge greater costs in the future.

The right answer, many economists suggest, is to act quickly to launch tests of potentially useful technology and programs worldwide, then rapidly scale up those that work.

In Mendelsohn's view, the most aggressive level of greenhouse-gas cuts promoted in the U.N. report is "too radical a recommendation to be supported by mainstream economics." Because efforts to control greenhouse gases will be effective only if all of the world's major producers take part, "by starting with a crash program you ensure a lot of countries are not going to join in," he said.

However, "you don't want to get sucked into thinking the only choice is to do the crash program or nothing at all," he said.

He suggests that a much more modest target — limiting atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to perhaps 640 to 750 parts per million — would cost the United States a tenth as much as the most aggressive scenario outlined in the U.N. report. Worldwide, the cost would fall by about half, according to the report. Other scientists and economists say holding greenhouse-gas concentrations to about 550 parts per million, at somewhat higher cost, is a better option.

Under Mendelsohn's scenario, average global temperatures would be expected to rise by 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, according to the U.N. panel, compared with about 3 to 6 degrees under the most aggressive program.

Because no one knows what temperature increase might trigger disastrous environmental problems — large sea-level rises, worsening flooding and droughts, a disruption of ocean circulation patterns — the lower range of temperature increases is generally thought to be safer.

Development of new technology and creative use of existing technology potentially could cut the costs of reducing emissions dramatically. Because plants draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when they grow, using plant fuels rather than fossil fuels effectively cuts emissions of greenhouse gases, Edmonds said.

If engineers are able to find efficient ways to use plants to create fuel and then capture carbon dioxide released from the smokestacks of plant-fueled power stations and pump it into storage underground, the world could potentially lower levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere while generating power.

But racing too quickly toward renewable energy and other efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions could have problematic consequences as well, Mendelsohn warned.

Using more nuclear power, he said, will lead to renewed concerns about what to do with nuclear waste. Planting billions of acres of new crops for biofuels could lead to accelerating deforestation in places such as Brazil and Indonesia. And efforts to boost hydroelectric generation could result in many of the world's last wild rivers being dammed.

David O'Reilly, the chief executive of Chevron, points to a Senate bill calling on the Energy Department to develop a plan to cut gasoline consumption by 20 percent by 2017, 35 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by 2030, largely by substituting ethanol and other renewable fuels.

Under the Senate proposal, the amount of alternative fuels used in U.S. motor vehicles would rise to 8.5 billion gallons by 2008 and 36 billion gallons by 2022.

The problem, O'Reilly said, is that U.S. farmers cannot currently produce enough corn to make more than 15 billion gallons of fuel. Producing 36 billion gallons would require huge corn imports or a massive overhaul of the U.S. agricultural economy. And Chevron is not just protecting its fossil-fuels turf; the company already produces 70 percent of the ethanol made in the United States. "We're dealing with a massive economy and a massive energy infrastructure that was developed to supply this economy," O'Reilly said. "You can't turn that around in just a couple of years."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003715537_warmingcosts21.html

AP
Paula Abdul breaks nose in dog mishap

2 hours, 45 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES -
Paula Abdul broke her nose over the weekend after she fell while trying to avoid stepping on her Chihuahua, her publicist said Monday.


Abdul was recovering from the mishap and will appear on "American Idol" Tuesday and its season finale Wednesday, publicist David Brokaw said.

"She's a little sore, but is doing fine," he said.

Abdul told the syndicated entertainment TV show "Extra" she tore cartilage in her nose and fractured her toe.

"I took a nasty fall ... trying not to hurt my dog. I bruised myself on my arm ... my chest, my waist all the way down to my hip. All from my little chubby Tulip," Abdul said.

The dog was not hurt, Brokaw said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_en_tv/people_paula_abdul;_ylt=Ah7.HhT1YFpJ6euRSH.mcJjMWM0F

 

[red states rule]

AP
Paula Abdul breaks nose in dog mishap

2 hours, 45 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES -
Paula Abdul broke her nose over the weekend after she fell while trying to avoid stepping on her Chihuahua, her publicist said Monday.


Abdul was recovering from the mishap and will appear on "American Idol" Tuesday and its season finale Wednesday, publicist David Brokaw said.

"She's a little sore, but is doing fine," he said.

Abdul told the syndicated entertainment TV show "Extra" she tore cartilage in her nose and fractured her toe.

"I took a nasty fall ... trying not to hurt my dog. I bruised myself on my arm ... my chest, my waist all the way down to my hip. All from my little chubby Tulip," Abdul said.

The dog was not hurt, Brokaw said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_en_tv/people_paula_abdul;_ylt=Ah7.HhT1YFpJ6euRSH.mcJjMWM0F

So you can;t refute the article over more global warming hysteria?

Didn't think so

 

[wiggles]

So you can;t refute the article over more global warming hysteria?

Didn't think so

You can't refute the article over celebrity mishaps?

Didn't think so.


Lawyer: Hasselhoff gets visitation rights back
POSTED: 8:43 a.m. EDT, May 22, 2007

Story Highlights
• David Hasselhoff right to see daughters restored
• Visitation had been revoked after alleged drunk video
• Both Hasselhoff and ex-wife mum on details

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has restored David Hasselhoff's right to visit his two teenage daughters after that access was suspended over a videotape showing the recovering alcoholic apparently intoxicated, an attorney for the actor said Monday.

Lawyer Melvin Goldsman made the disclosure before the start of a closed-door court hearing concerning the videotape and related issues.

Hasselhoff, 54, and his former wife, Pamela Bach, 43, both attended the hearing but neither provided details after it ended. (Watch Bach tell Larry King about Hasselhoff's "disease" Video)

"It went very well, the truth was told, and I can't say any more," Hasselhoff said outside court.

Goldsman said the suspension order had been lifted Friday after being implemented on May 7 by Superior Court Judge Mark Juhas. The two-week suspension had been set to expire Monday.

Goldsman declined to elaborate on Monday's hearing.

Bach's attorney, Debra Opri, told reporters "we're very happy" but provided no further details. Another hearing was scheduled for June 1.

Portions of the video that aired on syndicated entertainment shows showed Hasselhoff, wearing only blue jeans, lying on a floor and clumsily eating a hamburger while one of his daughters scolds him about his drinking.

On Friday, Opri's publicist, James Levesque, said the judge was scheduled to review Hasselhoff's fitness to visit the two girls, Bach's requests for increased spousal and child support, and the possible need for the former "Baywatch" star to enter alcohol rehabilitation.

Opri had asked that Hasselhoff be barred from visiting 16-year-old Hayley and 14-year-old Taylor until June 1.

Juhas had also said on May 7 that he wanted to find out how long ago the videotape was made. Opri said it was taken in late April.

The judge also wanted Hasselhoff, Bach and their daughters to meet with a psychologist to evaluate custody and visitation arrangements.

Hasselhoff and Bach have been arguing over child and spousal support for months. They were married in December 1989. They were divorced last year.

Hasselhoff had been living in Nevada while appearing in the Las Vegas production of "The Producers."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[red states rule]

I take it you have nothing to offer to counter the myth of global warming?

Typical when libs are confronted with facts