The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on May 20, 2014, 04:42:21 pm
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/kerry-if-were-wrong-climate-change-whats-worst-can-happen_793392.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/kerry-if-were-wrong-climate-change-whats-worst-can-happen_793392.html)
Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'
'97 percent' of scientists are wrong.
Jeryl Bier
May 20, 2014 11:38 AM
Secretary of State John Kerry did not shy away from pejorative language when addressing "climate change" in his commencement speech at Boston College on Monday. Kerry referred to those skeptical of the Obama administration's climate claims as "members of the Flat Earth Society" who are "risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet" by resisting implementation of the administration's policies. At the very least, Kerry argued, what have we got to lose by taking the steps he and the president are advocating?
If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.
Kerry also suggested there's not much time to act, because "things will change in a hurry," and indeed some things have already changed:
Two major recent reports, one from the UN and one from retired U.S. military leaders, warn us not just of the crippling consequences to come, but that some of them are already here. Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent. Why? Because if crops can’t grow, there’ll be food insecurity. If there’s less water because of longer droughts, if there are stronger and more powerful storms, things will change in a hurry and they will change for the worse.
Kerry seemed to be echoing the words of French foreign ,inister Laurent Fabius who last week at an appearance with the secretary said that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." As CNS News later reported, Fabius went on to warn that the earth stands at "the edge of a climatic abyss." He was heartened, however, from some "glimmers of hope," adsserting that since the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, "climate denial is – at least in Europe – less audible."
-
Ummmmm..............it could be the end of America as we know it?? :shrug:
-
It would have tremendously further enriched the likes of Owl Gore for no purpose whatever!
-
AlGore gets richer, American people get poorer, the coal industry is destroyed ... um, what else?
-
AlGore gets richer, American people get poorer, the coal industry is destroyed ... um, what else?
Energy prices "necessarily" skyrocket...
-
The U.S. Economy is hugely weakened if not completely destroyed!
-
How about the Billions spent each year to combat climate change. Did I say "spent"? That usually implies you get something in return for your money. I meant flushed down the toilet. We could spend trillions each year and we are not going to change the temperature of the planet one iota. Areas of the planet will cool, and areas will warm, and areas will pretty much stay the same – All on its own doing.
From fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense spent $4 billion of its budget during that same period.
-
The enactment of a global tax and global taxing authority that significantly diminishes the USA's sovereignty. I know that in John Kerry's mind this is a good thing, but I doubt most Americans think so.
-
I don't believe that we will have cleaner air with all of these efforts to make the price of energy skyrocket. Instead of heating homes with what could be clean energy (clean coal, nuclear, natural gas), people will be burning coal and wood in stoves and fireplaces.
Solar panels and windmills kill birds; they also destroy the habitat for animals on the ground nearby.
And lack of affordable energy will make sure that manufacturing will move to other countries - it's folly to believe that all other countries will destroy their economies over global warming. China and India sure aren't.
But it's probably a good way to stop immigration.
-
At this point, "what possible difference can it make?"