"matt_sykes"  wrote in message
news:1192024094.302851.300370@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 10 Oct, 15:11, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> > Global Warming Could Trigger Economic Meltdown
> >
> > OCTOBER 10, 2007 07:22, DongA.com
> >
> > Climate change triggered by global warming could cause
stagnation,
> > slow economic growth, and rising prices all over the world,
according
> > to a recent report by Morgan Stanley. In other words, climate
change
> > has become serious enough to make a dent in the world
economy.
> > The report says South Korea is one of the most vulnerable
countries in
> > the world to environmental damage. Elga Bartsch, a Europe
Research
> > Center economist at Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, said
in a
> > report "Climate Change Economics 101" released on Tuesday,
climate
> > change is highly likely to have an impact on the global
economy at a
> > comparable level to the collapse of communism and the
Internet
> > revolution.
> >
> > Climate Change Affects the Economy-
> >
> > The report pointed out that concerns over climate change
could fuel
> > global protectionism.
> >
> > It said that if the major developed countries strengthen
their
> > environmental regulations to curb climate change, developing
countries
> > and other developed countries might have difficulties in
exporting
> > their goods. Then these countries would raise trade barriers
to
> > protect their own industries, leading to price hikes due to
> > constrained global trade. In the process, reduced production
from each
> > country could trigger stagflation, a condition characterized
by price
> > hikes and slow economic growth.
> >
> > Developing countries are more likely to suffer from
stagflation since
> > natural disasters and diseases caused by climate change tend
to strike
> > developing countries with poor finances harder.
> >
> > Morgan Stanley's report predicted that climate change will
greatly
> > impact the global financial market. It expects that funds
investing
> > massively in technologies for climate change adaptation will
lead the
> > market.
> >
> > The report said that currencies unable to adapt to climate
change will
> > also suffer in the financial market.
> >
> > It also emphasized that the resources affected most by the
changes are
> > not air but the quality and quantity of water.
> >
> > Developing Countries More Vulnerable to Climate Change-
> >
> > Morgan Stanley conducted a survey of 25 countries--10
developed
> > countries including the U.S. and Japan and 15 developing
countries
> > including Korea and China--on 76 items such as the remaining
amount of
> > natural resources, the level of contamination from past and
present,
> > environmental policies, the ability to improve the
environment on the
> > ESI or Environmental Sustainability Index, and measured
greenhouse gas
> > emissions.
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > Europe and Japan Likely to Seize Opportunities-
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > The U.S. and Australia, which are rich with natural
resources, Poland,
> > and Korea (adjacent to the severely polluted Russia and
China) are
> > expected to suffer from economic setbacks to some extent
since they
> > are not free from the impact of climate change.
> >
> > European countries like France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and
Japan are
> > expected to benefit from climate change. These countries have
> > excellent R&D in environment-related technologies and are
less likely
> > to be exposed to environmental problems. They will not only
be able to
> > sell technologies, but also take the lead in a global market
that will
> > be influenced by climate change.
>
> Every sinlge one of these projections over the last century has
been
> wrong.

Absolutely.
They keep forgetting (ignoring?) the limitations of, and
deliberate fudging in, those,now discredited, climate models ...

viz:
Disclaimer

  The projections are based on results from computer models that
involve

simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully
understood.

Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for the
accuracy of

the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person's

interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance
on this

information.



And further:

  Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they
represent feedback

effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud
regimes,

biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The coarse
spatial

resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on their
ability to

simulate the details of regional climate change. Future climate
change will

also be influenced by other, largely unpredictable, factors such
as changes

in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and chaotic variations
within the

climate system itself. Rapid climate change, or a step-like
climate response

to the enhanced greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood
cannot be

defined. Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be
ruled out,

these projections should be considered with caution.


-- 

Regards

Bonzo

. "Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model
experts and the crowd of deluded citizens that believe the
numbers predicted by their models." Freeman Dyson Professor of
Physics, Institute for Advanced Study,Princeton, Fellow of the
American Physical Society, Member of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, Fellow of the Royal Society of London

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote in message 
news:qCfPi.7576$xa2.3995@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>>
>>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
> "Bonzo"  wrote
>> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
>> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
>> Voodoo statistics!
>
>  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
> across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
> below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the 
> crude
> nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that 
> can
> be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance 
> between
> the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.
>
>  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics 
> in
> general aren't you Bonzo.
>
>  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
> how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
> to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds 
> scientists.
>
>  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
> school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
>
>  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
>
>
> "Bonzo"  wrote
>> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>>
>> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
>> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
>> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
>> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
>> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
>> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
>> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
>> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
>> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54
>
>  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
> best linear fit to the data shown as "o".
>
> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
> 2001 14.48  ************************o
> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?
>
What a dumbass au

"James"  wrote
> What a dumbass au


FYI Number 42: April 6, 2004

AIP Endorsement of American Geophysical Union Climate Change Statement

  The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a
position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical
Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. AGU is one of ten Member Societies of
the American Institute of Physics. The statement follows:

    "Human Impacts on Climate

    "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These
effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's
history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences
cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures
observed during the second half of the 20th century.

    "Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations
of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons
and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution,
increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A
particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be
rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following
rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

    "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the
mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more
than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates
that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for
hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will
cause global surface climate to be warmer.

    "The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some
aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur,
exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take
place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions.
Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will
be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will
melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea
levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes
in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be
considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

    "Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for
global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including
better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in
climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary,
because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity,
greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate
concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in
climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will
reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

    "The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states
as an objective the ' . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.' AGU believes that no single threshold
level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the
beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing
concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases
in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on
climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future,
constitute a real basis for concern.

    "Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are
needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include
fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased
computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next
generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to
participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and
policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy
discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of
peer-reviewed research results.

    "Science provides society with information useful in dealing with
natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves
our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While
human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long
lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing
with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of
scientific information to governments and private organizations so that
their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

    "The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to
that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to
predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the
globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful
effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g.,
slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices),
technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and
finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme
events."

  Richard M. Jones
  Media and Government Relations Division
  American Institute of Physics
  fyi@aip.org
  (301) 209-3095