Excellent reporting (audio file) on WBUR this morning on the new global warming report (media summary here) commissioned by the EPA, and written by scientists from Tufts, U. Maryland and BU. (See, the EPA hasn’t become completely useless yet, in spite of the best efforts of BushCo).
$94 billion cost for global warming, just in Greater Boston. When will skeptical business types wake up, and realize that if it’s bad for everyone, it’s bad for business, too?
Message to Mitt, Reilly, Galvin, Patrick, all you would-be govs: you’ve got to make this a major issue, and take it national. Get in the media’s face about this, in a real and persistent way. It’s way past time.
Our national delegation, even more so. Stand up and start barking.
Please share widely!
You people are the worst kind of “Stalin?s Useful Idiots”At least he claimed that he was benefiting humanity through expanding Communism and that his idiots were helping without realizing itYour class of idiots is just spreading misinformation and frightening people for the benefit of a handful of university researchers to get more grantsIf you really were concerned about the environment you’d raise funds and lobby for research to disprove your sacred data and claims [e.g. “hockey stick” and flooding studies] — then if the thorough skeptical inquiry failed — you’d have a convincing storySuch a approach was taken by the BBC that funded a skeptical scientist to test the claims of acoustic cavitation mediated thermonuclear fusion, or the ?Star in a Jar? — to date no free fusionPS: If we really were concerned about a 100 year flood on top of 2 to 3 feet of sea level rise at the highest tide — we could raise the dam and make other minor adjustments for far less than the impact of a Draconian Super-Kyoto [cutting CO2 emissions by 60 to 80%] on the economy — humans have always learned to adjust to the climate changes — that’s why we’re called Sapiens
Hello “tdpk”,Thanks for your message. I hope you’ll adopt a more civil tone next time. You are using “ad hominem” arguments, ie: since we’re a bunch of idiots and shills for useless people, our arguments must be wrong. You haven’t refuted a bit of the data. You probably haven’t even read the “media summary”. Are you qualified to speak about the data? Out with it.What do you say to this link here:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686Now, I’m not a scientist. So, I guess I’m at the mercy of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Science. But in the absence of your providing evidence, and knowledge of your credentials, I’ll take their word over yours.update: Also, “Ted” (your MIT alum email address seems not to be functional, BTW): if you read any of the media summary, you’ll see that your glibly proposed “solution” is not so Sapiens, nor even Habilis. (And rather hard to Erectus.)