Yeah, we're all going to be in the poor house if we adopt cleaner emissions standards. Oh wait, most of us already are in the po' house - so much so we can't even afford to buy another vowel for the rest of the word. So gee, what's there to really lose then, eh?

And speaking of that completely non-existent Scientific Evidence...

On May 26th, James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute Of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels.

I suggest that a "scientific reticence" is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

And then there's the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change which released three reports.

One on the Science of Global Warming.

In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

One on the Impacts of Global Warming, not only on natural resources but also on our global security.

If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism. There is also domestic reasons. If higher-intensity hurricanes create a lot of damage, that does in some sense have security-implications as well. There is a whole range of factors. Water scarcity is another one. I’m not saying all this translates into direct threats to the U.S., but conflict anywhere has some implication for security in the U.S. As the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth, it is for the U.S. to take a global view of what strategically might minimize the possibility of threats to national security.

And a third on the relatively Modest Cost of implementing Green Friendly measures to combat Climate Change.

Humans must make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. report said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said keeping the temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product.

Not that the facts have ever really gotten in the way of chronic deniers like Myron and his pals.

Fox News: "Al Gore’s Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?"

Rush Limbaugh: "[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience."

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4