"Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
news:1192024744.131677.310000@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 10, 6:48 am, matt_sykes  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Got any support for the widely sweeping statement,
> or are you just blowing smoke, Matt?
>


The 'Old' Consensus?

 INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY



21 Sep 2007



http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290



Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in
chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old
Washington Post story indicates he did.



On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S.
Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by
NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool.



The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.



The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in
"the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the
atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the
sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six
degrees.



Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could
be sufficient to trigger an ice age."



Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer
program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his
resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.



So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the
skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse
effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host
of others so fervently believe today?



"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide
fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story,
which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood,
who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the
Washington Times to his finding.



Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how
he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age
who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global
warming fear monger.



This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times'
John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global
warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did
he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in
1971?



People can change their positions based on new information or by
taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already
known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of
views as long as it is arrived at honestly.



But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as
much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from
one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would
be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move
or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical
evidence?



If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With
NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that
Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to
embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.



Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.


-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"There is now no doubt that the UN's International Panel on
Climate
Change (IPCC), has a history of sacrificing science for political
agendas. This conclusion is based upon the IPCC being found
revising
the writings of contributing scientists (without their consent),
accepting as valid the findings of the "hockeystick" graph, and
completely unreceptive to valid scientific criticism. Michaels
also
documents a number of other errors and misleading statements by
the
IPCC. This is the stuff of political agendas, not of sound
science." Michael R. Fox Ph.D

"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?