I checked YAHOO, there was no link. In fact, the article did not even give a definitive title to the report other than to call it, "an international report". The article also failed to mention who paid for the report. Also, only one of the "1,360 experts in 95 nations" was identified by name, though the article did not make clear what role he played in the research. The one person identified with the report, Professor A.H. Zakri, a native of Malaysia, holds a Ph.D. in Genetics and Plant Breeding. How that qualifies him to address issues such as global warming, is not clear.Originally Posted by discretedancer
Funny when I referenced a study authored by an agency of the U.S. Government and questioned the validity and motivation of the authors of the report you responded by asking me, "Do you really think 1 outdated EPA study is more impressve than the work of 1,000 international scientists? You really think it's more comprehensive?" Well, how do we know the "study" is more comprehensive if we can't read it? You also further insisted, "but 1,000 scientists from around the world vs 1 agency concentrating only on the US and responsible to a non-environmental adminsitration...which do you feel is more likely to be slanted? Which presents a GLOBAL rather than NATIONAL picture" Well, with aboslutely no idea what the report is called, who sponsered it, or who these "1,000 international scientists" are, how can we judge whether their report might be slanted or not?
You asked me for evidence of the billions it would cost. I provided you evidence. Now if you want to fall back on the old, "the government is misleading us" argument go ahead. I'm curious as to what you think the motivation of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) would be to mislead us. Especially since the report I quoted was prepared in 1998 while Al Gore was Vice-President. It seems to me that the EIA would have every motivation to slant their report in favor of the treaty that their boss signed.The excerpt you took on the DOE report is misleading, as it doesn't take into account the economy of scale (and price reductions therefrom ) of volume production of cleaner energy, the savings from conservation, COMPLETELY IGNORES the costs of maintaining military forces worldwide to protect oil reserves, the cost of emergency cleanup crews (that's your tax money folks) health effects of pollution, destruction of land values from pollution and extraction industries, expenses of relocating families when events occur, etc. NOT TO MENTION their numbers are questionable to begin with, since they disagree with what every other signing nation said about Kyoto.




Bookmarks