Climate of uncertainty...BoooYah!

Well, I was hoping for a Bingo! here, but only got 3-in-a-row.

So for most of the last decade we have been playing a back and forth game with signs and wonders that are offered as confirmation that catastrophic global warming is well under way. But these tend to be as controversial as the computer climate models. As good as our measurement techniques are, there is still large disagreement about basic facts. Are the polar ice caps melting or growing thicker? Both, depending on what data set you consult. Is the last decade the hottest in 2,000 years? You need a flak jacket to survive the crossfire on this one. Can variance in solar radiation account for some or most of the warming we've experienced to date? Better put on a second flak jacket. Do clouds warm or cool the planet? Both, and understanding the balance between their conflicting effects remains a huge problem for climate models. Are ocean temperatures rising and Gulf Stream currents changing? Probably, but we need better data to be sure. Will hurricanes get worse? Get a helmet to go with your flak jacket, and put FEMA on speed-dial. Aren't scientists overwhelmingly in agreement that the science is "settled"? Well, yes, except for the hundreds of scientists who've signed various statements and resolutions saying we lack adequate mastery of the subject.

At this point even most people with a scientific background throw up their hands and say, "Call me back in 50 years if I need to turn up my air conditioning." It does no good, as global warming skeptics and many official climate science reports often do, to call for reducing "uncertainty" in climate science. The uncertainties of climate change have less to do with the enormous complexity of the linkages of the various earth sciences comprising the issue, and more to do with the stakes involved. With near-term global greenhouse gas suppression costs called for at Kyoto calculated in the multiple trillions of dollars ($37 trillion according to one widely accepted estimate), political considerations magnify the importance of nailing down uncertainties beyond the ability of science to do so. In fact, with a subject as sprawling as climate change, the disciplinary diversity of science is going to magnify rather than narrow uncertainties.
--AEI Steven Hayward

I've been a-lookin' around for a way to open this for a damned long time now, crap, it's too confusing I'ma just gonna give it up.

THIS IS MERELY ONE SIGN of the crackup of the global climate change caucus. Slowly, most governments are coming around to what has been President George W. Bush's position on the matter since taking office in 2001: The Kyoto Protocol is a nonstarter. ...

The first sign of this new realism became evident at last July's G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, which Blair hosted. Many observers expected that President Bush would come under renewed pressure to relent in his opposition to Kyoto's binding emissions caps. However, the statement issued at the G-8 summit appeared to be a vindication of Bush's perspective. One portion of the G-8 communiqué adopted the exact language the Bush administration has been using since 2001: "While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases." The communiqué's policy guidance placed greater emphasis than previous statements on economic growth, technological innovation, and--above all--adaptation to climate change. "U.S. Appears to Win Global Warming Debate" was the dismayed Associated Press headline from Gleneagles. ...

These developments suggest that however more convincing the scientific case for serious global warming may become, most world leaders are recognizing that near-term emissions reductions aren't a sensible way to begin moving to a post-carbon energy future. Twenty or thirty years from now we are likely to look back on the Kyoto Protocol as the climate-policy equivalent of the discredited wage and price controls of the 1970s, even as the climate prediction models themselves may come to resemble the elaborate Keynesian models that were supposed to enable us to fine-tune the economy with perfect precision. The Keynesian understanding of the economy was not wholly wrong, but fell far short of the mastery of detail its backers claimed. Climate alarmists like to warn us of the danger of severe climate "surprises" that may come our way. But if we're really taken by surprise, what does it tell us about the limitations of their models?

Is there--to extend the analogy--a "supply-side" analogy for climate policy? Amazingly enough, a hot topic among environmental economists is the positive relationship between economic growth--the central pillar of Bush's climate strategy--and environmental improvement. There is even a conceptual curve for it, known as the "Environmental Kuznets Curve," that can be scribbled on a napkin. It looks just like the Laffer Curve.
--AEI Steven Hayward

This great little number is designed to grip your man's imagination and keep his eyes riveted right to you! Provocatively sexy, this lace teddy accents your body in a way that will make you feel sexy, and make him feel like he's on fire. It's nice and comfortable, and the snap crotch is ... well ... convenient. This is a great item to add to your collection of bedroom attire. You can add a feather boa, or something like that, but I think it works best by itself.

Boo-Yah!

Note: In case anyone was wondering, neither picture is related to either "Anita Job's" image or her attire.