Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy.

Uh, yes, you did. NASA is the organization which published the data I posted, and it is the organization you commented about.

>As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established
>man made CO2 as a culprit.

You're contradicting yourself again. You just said there was as much science that establishes that as science that does not. Which is it?

You can cherry pick my words. I dont care cause that is what you do.

Does your neck get sore often?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>You can cherry pick my words.

I can, but I'm not doing that.

In the second line you say that there is as much science supporting AGW as there is science claiming it's not valid. IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH you claim there is no data supporting AGW.

I have never seen anyone who can flip-flop as fast as you can.

[rushmc 18]

Does your neck get sore??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen.

Today, there is as much science that says you are wrong as there is that says you are correct in your positions.

So, the debate should go on. The greenies dont want that. As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established man made CO2 as a culprit.

I think we have already established that your salary depends on your not understanding what's going on here.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[winsor 191]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen.

Today, there is as much science that says you are wrong as there is that says you are correct in your positions.

So, the debate should go on. The greenies dont want that. As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established man made CO2 as a culprit.

I think we have already established that your salary depends on your not understanding what's going on here.

Ad Hominem (circumstantial).

I'll take a professional in a field over one possessed by religious fervor any time.

Any merit there is to the "Climate Change" argument is outweighed by the junk science used to support it.

Ecology is not pretty, and most of the people on the ecological bandwagon take a Walt Disney view of the subject.

The temperature distribution on Planet Earth is a complex dynamic without human influence, and for us to claim that we are now the prime mover in the thermal characteristics of our environment is pushing it.

Sure, we have a number of effects on climate, both micro and macro. Researchers have used various models to consider the effects of our influence on the earth's surface and its atmosphere, and there is hardly any consensus regarding which set of influences prevail.

Where I have a problem is when people adhere to one model or another with religious fervor, discounting anything that might call into question the conclusions to which they cling.

Are "Greenhouse Gases" a factor? Of course.

Are they the be-all, end-all of the trend of our climate? Not bloody likely.

If you focus on such concepts as "carbon footprint" and ignore such things as population, I call bullshit.

If the population of this planet was a million humans, everyone could drive around all day in coal-fired locomotives and have less impact than a population of 10 billion who all live without electricity
or the use of fire.

The "climate change" issue is largely an emotional one. People with marginal to nonexistant technical credentials (the legislature) control the funding for research, and those who get the money and attention are deemed correct. NASA is one of the organizations that is funded by political criteria.

We have some very real and immediate challenges to face, some of which are likely not surmountable. To be distracted by something as far down the list of importance and immediacy as "climate change" is sheer idiocy.

As an aside, both W and Algore are certified morons, but, ironically enough, it is W who is a Green poster child. It is Algore who keeps the coal mines working overtime to keep his plantation in operation.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen.

Today, there is as much science that says you are wrong as there is that says you are correct in your positions.

So, the debate should go on. The greenies dont want that. As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established man made CO2 as a culprit.

I think we have already established that your salary depends on your not understanding what's going on here.

Ya, I guess YOU did!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen.

Today, there is as much science that says you are wrong as there is that says you are correct in your positions.

So, the debate should go on. The greenies dont want that. As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established man made CO2 as a culprit.

I think we have already established that your salary depends on your not understanding what's going on here.

Ad Hominem (circumstantial).

I'll take a professional in a field over one possessed by religious fervor any time.

Any merit there is to the "Climate Change" argument is outweighed by the junk science used to support it.

Ecology is not pretty, and most of the people on the ecological bandwagon take a Walt Disney view of the subject.

The temperature distribution on Planet Earth is a complex dynamic without human influence, and for us to claim that we are now the prime mover in the thermal characteristics of our environment is pushing it.

Sure, we have a number of effects on climate, both micro and macro. Researchers have used various models to consider the effects of our influence on the earth's surface and its atmosphere, and there is hardly any consensus regarding which set of influences prevail.

Where I have a problem is when people adhere to one model or another with religious fervor, discounting anything that might call into question the conclusions to which they cling.

Are "Greenhouse Gases" a factor? Of course.

Are they the be-all, end-all of the trend of our climate? Not bloody likely.

If you focus on such concepts as "carbon footprint" and ignore such things as population, I call bullshit.

If the population of this planet was a million humans, everyone could drive around all day in coal-fired locomotives and have less impact than a population of 10 billion who all live without electricity
or the use of fire.

The "climate change" issue is largely an emotional one. People with marginal to nonexistant technical credentials (the legislature) control the funding for research, and those who get the money and attention are deemed correct. NASA is one of the organizations that is funded by political criteria.

We have some very real and immediate challenges to face, some of which are likely not surmountable. To be distracted by something as far down the list of importance and immediacy as "climate change" is sheer idiocy.

As an aside, both W and Algore are certified morons, but, ironically enough, it is W who is a Green poster child. It is Algore who keeps the coal mines working overtime to keep his plantation in operation.


Blue skies,

Winsor

+1

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[penniless 0]

You are, I believe, a chemical engineer by training. Do you believe that adding 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year has no consequences?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen.

Chose not to comment on this one, eh?

Quote

I think we have already established that your salary depends on your not understanding what's going on here.

Ad Hominem (circumstantial).

..SNIP..

As an aside, both W and Algore are certified morons

I feel a big irony score coming on.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[winsor 191]

Quote

You are, I believe, a chemical engineer by training. Do you believe that adding 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year has no consequences?

Chemical, Mechanical (Thermo/Fluid) and Electrical (Systems & Controls).

I do not operate on the basis of "belief," one way or another, so we have a disconnect at the outset.

My contention is that, regardless of the numbers that may be bandied about, A) the claims of causality are subject to very sloppy scientific backing and B) the claimed solution to the alleged problem is by no means the only, or even least destructive means of addressing the issue.

Let's take an example of an inflammatory issue for comparison.

Problem: "They have Weapons of Mass Destruction! We know! We have the receipts!"

Solution: "We must Free them from Tyranny! It is the ONLY thing we can do!"

Taking a step back, we may ask what's the big deal about WMDs? Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, India, France, Britain, Russia, China, North Korea and North Dakota all have them. In general, they are an economic black hole and security nightmare for nations that possess them, and they really don't provide much (if any) benefit.

As far as starting a war to fix a perceived problem, that's been tried once or twice. An afternoon spent in the History section of the local library might have proven enlightening as to what results one may expect if doing so.

I suggest that, by the same token that we might have been better served by taking a different approach to our differences with Mesopotamia, we could be better served by taking a different approach to the perceived threat to our global climate.

Put another way, even if what is claimed to be a problem is a problem, what is put forth as the only solution is not necessarily the only solution, the best solution - or a solution at all.

Whenever someone rattles off their version of Climate Change orthodoxy, I am underwhelmed by their clarity of thought as much as I am overwhelmed by the hysteria with which it is put forth.

I do not claim to be right, I leave that to True Believers (tm). I do reserve the right to observe that the arguments in support of Climate Change and its remedies are ill conceived, badly formulated and smack of religious conviction.

My support of sustainability is not the result of knee-jerk adherence to the liturgy of any political orthodoxy, and I will not pretend to respect conclusions drawn from any such ideology. Stupidity is not a virtue, the campaign for "self esteem" aside.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'll take a professional in a field over one possessed by religious fervor any time.

Which, logically, indicates that you will take the word of the climatologist who publish their research in respected peer refereed scientific journals over the sophist rhetoric of Michael Crighton, since they are professionals in their field (and have subjected their work to a much higher standard of rigor), while Crighton wrote fiction professionally. Typically, the religious fervor comes from the same people who are in denial about reality.

Utilizing the peer review process is pretty much the opposite of demonstrating religious fervor. If those who would have us believe that AGW is not real would make their case in respected scientific journals instead of in newspapers an blogs, then they would gain a tremendous amount of credibility. Until then, all of their rhetoric is nothing but an indication of the, as you say, religious fervor of the Deniers.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[winsor 191]

Quote

Quote

I'll take a professional in a field over one possessed by religious fervor any time.

Which, logically, indicates that you will take the word of the climatologist who publish their research in respected peer refereed scientific journals over the sophist rhetoric of Michael Crighton, since they are professionals in their field (and have subjected their work to a much higher standard of rigor), while Crighton wrote fiction professionally. Typically, the religious fervor comes from the same people who are in denial about reality.

Utilizing the peer review process is pretty much the opposite of demonstrating religious fervor. If those who would have us believe that AGW is not real would make their case in respected scientific journals instead of in newspapers an blogs, then they would gain a tremendous amount of credibility. Until then, all of their rhetoric is nothing but an indication of the, as you say, religious fervor of the Deniers.

Logic is not your long suit.

I gave two options, and you chose to (inaccurately) draw conclusions about a third.

The peer review process is not without flaws, and I don't "take the word" of much of anyone. I reserve the right to think for myself.

No one but an adherent would use such a term as "Deniers" in context, and you have thereby discredited yourself further.

What you think you know may or may not be true, but I can see no indication that you could tell the difference one way or another.

Blue skies,

Winsor

[rushmc 18]

I am sorry, but you must have been missed when the memo was sent.

If you are a “denier” it is not possible to think for yourself. You must have someone who, for reasons yet to be found, fills your head with thoughts and ideas that in no way can have any truth to them.

Those who think for themselves, by this very act, will acknowledge (and believe) that man is the main cause of today’s climate anomalies.

I will forward you the memo and please take note of this before any further posts on this topic.

Cordially,




The Nanny State

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I gave two options, and you chose to (inaccurately) draw conclusions about a third.

Not at all. I merely pointed out that it is the professionals in the field who claim that GW is real and that there is a very high probability that it has an anthropogenic component. That is fact.

Quote

No one but an adherent would use such a term as "Deniers" in context, and you have thereby discredited yourself further.

You've exposed me. I admit it. I am an adherent of the truth.

Quote

What you think you know may or may not be true, but I can see no indication that you could tell the difference one way or another.

I know that climatologists are far more qualified to make generally accurate assessments of climate than a best selling fiction author. Indeed, posting a link to a Crighton essay while ignoring hundreds of peer reviewed studies might be seen by most reasonable people as an indication of the inability to tell the difference between truth and fiction.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll take a professional in a field over one possessed by religious fervor any time.

Which, logically, indicates that you will take the word of the climatologist who publish their research in respected peer refereed scientific journals over the sophist rhetoric of Michael Crighton, since they are professionals in their field (and have subjected their work to a much higher standard of rigor), while Crighton wrote fiction professionally. Typically, the religious fervor comes from the same people who are in denial about reality.

Utilizing the peer review process is pretty much the opposite of demonstrating religious fervor. If those who would have us believe that AGW is not real would make their case in respected scientific journals instead of in newspapers an blogs, then they would gain a tremendous amount of credibility. Until then, all of their rhetoric is nothing but an indication of the, as you say, religious fervor of the Deniers.

Logic is not your long suit.

Another ad hominen! You really deserve that irony score.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

You are, I believe, a chemical engineer by training. Do you believe that adding 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year has no consequences?

Chemical, Mechanical (Thermo/Fluid) and Electrical (Systems & Controls).

I do not operate on the basis of "belief," one way or another, so we have a disconnect at the outset.

My contention is that, regardless of the numbers that may be bandied about, A) the claims of causality are subject to very sloppy scientific backing and B) the claimed solution to the alleged problem is by no means the only, or even least destructive means of addressing the issue.

Let's take an example of an inflammatory issue for comparison.


blah blah blah.

Not a very elegant way of completely avoiding the question.

Humans are adding approximately 6ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere by mass each year. That amounts to over 1% of total atmospheric CO2 added each year. So much is NOT junk science, it's a very easy calculation. Measurements at very reliable laboratories show the atmospheric CO2 content is indeed increasing at a rate which corresponds to the rate at which we are adding it. Those are reproducible measurements and also are not junk science.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas - its absorbtion spectrum is very well characterized. That also is not junk science.

So how about responding to the question?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

Taking a step back, we may ask what's the big deal about WMDs? Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, India, France, Britain, Russia, China, North Korea and North Dakota all have them. In general, they are an economic black hole and security nightmare for nations that possess them, and they really don't provide much (if any) benefit.
Winsor

Nonsense.

Go to the store and see how many American goods there. Then make a conclusion - which formed a black hole in the world economy.

Who made nuclear explosions in cities with civilians? Forgot?

[winsor 191]

Quote

Quote

Taking a step back, we may ask what's the big deal about WMDs? Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, India, France, Britain, Russia, China, North Korea and North Dakota all have them. In general, they are an economic black hole and security nightmare for nations that possess them, and they really don't provide much (if any) benefit.
Winsor

Nonsense.

Go to the store and see how many American goods there. Then make a conclusion - which formed a black hole in the world economy.

Who made nuclear explosions in cities with civilians? Forgot?

I assume you have a point, but have no idea what it might be.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Taking a step back, we may ask what's the big deal about WMDs?

Yes, we can. And many have. Selfishly, also a favorite topic of mine. Explanations of the “big deal” range from strategic deterrence to prestige to nuclear/chemical/biological weapons taboo to the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, [low probability worst case scenario, imo]. Lots of significance, explanations, and discussions out there (& a few here too).

Quote

Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, India, France, Britain, Russia, China, North Korea and North Dakota all have them. In general, they are an economic black hole and security nightmare for nations that possess them, and they really don't provide much (if any) benefit.

On what do you base that claim? Causal or correlative?

There are some (e.g. Ken Waltz) who argue that possession of nuclear weapons is a stabilizing force in the anarchic international community. Two nuclear-armed states have never engaged direct war with each other. Therefore, nuclear expansion is not a “big deal.” I don’t think that’s the basis of your argument. Please correct me if you meant something else. Whether it’s a “security nightmare” or not seems to vary highly by nation and analysis.

How does one make nuclear weapons technology a beneficial economic enterprise? One model was implemented, quite successfully from some folks perspective, by Dr. AQ Khan (materials science and engineering). Is that an economic model you would support/encourage?

Otoh, Kissinger, Schultz, Nunn, and Perry, aka the “Four Horsemen” (or whatever else folks are calling them these days) have proposed working toward zero, aka “Road to Zero.” Toward. A vector that they recognize, if taken, would require 50+ years. What constitutes minimal strategic deterrence is debated robustly today.


NB: South Africa rolled back its nuclear weapons program in 1990.


VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,473]

>A) the claims of causality are subject to very sloppy scientific backing . . .

There's really no question that our emissions of CO2 result in an increase in concentration of that gas in our atmosphere. That's not even physics or chemistry; it's just math, and is not subject to political belief. This has a lot of direct effects, including increased photosynthetic rates in some plants, decrease in the photosynthetic rates of others, decreased pH of the oceans etc.

Nor is there any question that CO2, by virtue of its ability to block re-radiation of longwave infrared radiation, will increase heat retained by the earth.

Those are the two underpinnings to the causality claim, and they are far from sloppy.

From there we go on to "what happens next?" There are three categories of things that can happen as a result of the increased heat:

1) Positive feedback. If increasing the average worldwide temperature by a few degrees C results in the tundras of the world melting and releasing millions of tons of stored methane and CO2, then we further increase warming. There are unfortunately examples of this happening throughout history.

2) Negative feedback. If increasing the temperature by a few degrees C results in increased evaporation from the oceans, and thus increases daytime cloud formation and snow in higher latitudes, this increases the albedo of the planet and decreases warming effects.

3) No feedback. It may be that increasing the temperature of the planet has no discernible effect other than requiring you to turn up your A/C. Given the complexity of the ecosystem, however, this is the least likely of the three possibilities.

Thus the question becomes "will the positive feedback effects dominate, or will the negative effects dominate?" If negative feedback dominates, we will see far fewer changes in the ecosystem. Because while the effects themselves will be significant (sufficient to mitigate billions of watts of extra energy) they will also limit the temperature increase.

If positive feedback dominates, then we get warmer much more quickly, and our troubles are greater. They include loss of arable land, loss of water supplies, relocation requirements for billions etc etc. All can be dealt with as long as you have the money and time.

If we want to take that risk, that's fine. Make the decision, accept responsibility for the consequences and see what happens; just keep your checkbook on hand.

If not - if we want to minimize the chances of causing the same climate-change induced extinctions we've seen in the past - it may be worthwhile to choose nuclear over coal, solar over natural gas, batteries over gasoline.

> B) the claimed solution to the alleged problem is by no means the only,
>or even least destructive means of addressing the issue.

Hmm. I have seen literally dozens of proposed solutions, so the statement "the claimed solution is not the only one" is a little odd. Heck, I've even implemented a few - and haven't destroyed anything yet!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>A) the claims of causality are subject to very sloppy scientific backing . . .

There's really no question that our emissions of CO2 result in an increase in concentration of that gas in our atmosphere. That's not even physics or chemistry; it's just math, and is not subject to political belief. This has a lot of direct effects, including increased photosynthetic rates in some plants, decrease in the photosynthetic rates of others, decreased pH of the oceans etc.

Nor is there any question that CO2, by virtue of its ability to block re-radiation of longwave infrared radiation, will increase heat retained by the earth.

Those are the two underpinnings to the causality claim, and they are far from sloppy.

From there we go on to "what happens next?" There are three categories of things that can happen as a result of the increased heat:

1) Positive feedback. If increasing the average worldwide temperature by a few degrees C results in the tundras of the world melting and releasing millions of tons of stored methane and CO2, then we further increase warming. There are unfortunately examples of this happening throughout history.

2) Negative feedback. If increasing the temperature by a few degrees C results in increased evaporation from the oceans, and thus increases daytime cloud formation and snow in higher latitudes, this increases the albedo of the planet and decreases warming effects.

3) No feedback. It may be that increasing the temperature of the planet has no discernible effect other than requiring you to turn up your A/C. Given the complexity of the ecosystem, however, this is the least likely of the three possibilities.

Thus the question becomes "will the positive feedback effects dominate, or will the negative effects dominate?" If negative feedback dominates, we will see far fewer changes in the ecosystem. Because while the effects themselves will be significant (sufficient to mitigate billions of watts of extra energy) they will also limit the temperature increase.

If positive feedback dominates, then we get warmer much more quickly, and our troubles are greater. They include loss of arable land, loss of water supplies, relocation requirements for billions etc etc. All can be dealt with as long as you have the money and time.

If we want to take that risk, that's fine. Make the decision, accept responsibility for the consequences and see what happens; just keep your checkbook on hand.

If not - if we want to minimize the chances of causing the same climate-change induced extinctions we've seen in the past - it may be worthwhile to choose nuclear over coal, solar over natural gas, batteries over gasoline.

> B) the claimed solution to the alleged problem is by no means the only,
>or even least destructive means of addressing the issue.

Hmm. I have seen literally dozens of proposed solutions, so the statement "the claimed solution is not the only one" is a little odd. Heck, I've even implemented a few - and haven't destroyed anything yet!

I agree with a lot of your post. However, you draw some conclusions you call hard to deny and, you over simplify some of what you claim is in arguable.

But, that being said, there is one point that I beileve you have 180 degree out of phase.

Quote

If we want to take that risk, that's fine. Make the decision, accept responsibility for the consequences and see what happens; just keep your checkbook on hand.

Do you have any idea of what cap n trade and other taxes will cost in the long run and short run? An excelerted push toward and mandates of renewables will only add to the pain.

IMO the taxes proposed dwarf any costs the "may" be incured by doing nothing. It would not ever be close.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ion01 1]

You have also left out not only other possible scenerios but one which have historical and scientific backing such as increased farm land and more habitable areas.
Also, keep in mind that the oceans used to be higher. In rome Herculanium was a coast town.
The biggest problem with everything you have said is that you must ignore the fact the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by temperature, not the other way around. This can even be seen in the charts used by Gore. Temperature went up first then the CO2 followed. Temperature went down then CO2 followed.......Wait .....temperature went down and CO2 went down. This has happened at least twice in recent history: after the roman and midevil warming periods. Its also interesting to not that temperatures fell at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
If one looks at the actual amount that humans contribute to the input of CO2 it is insignificant and even if we stopped all production we would have an almost un-noticable effect. This, of course is increased by the fact that scientist don't know why CO2 dropped and why they aren't finding the amount of CO2 now that there should be. NASA is planning on using satelites to find the Missing CO2.
CO2 is also the smallest contributor to the greenhouse effect. In addition, all these horrible things that are supposed to happen are prediction in which the computers only use 8 factors out of over 100 known factors which effect global temperatures. In fact, the margin of error for the simple finding the average temperature of the earth is 5%. That margin of error actually is larger than the supposed increase.
What accounts for the drop in temperature over the past few year? The release of CO2 hasn't dropped and, once again, where is what should be there according to our predictions?
Also, if you look back in history we didn't even hit the high temperatures of the midevil and roman warming periods.
So lets call it climate change.....well thats what the climate does....it changes.... thats normal. That means things are fine.
People like to point to natural disasters to say things are getting worse. Well, lets remember that most are measured in the amount of damage done to humans. This means that if there is knowone effected that its not measured as as big a storm as one that kills a bunch of people. In the past with populations being smaller in areas and no media to publisize it comparisons to the past are hard. However, there are past events that far outweigh the recent. There is no real recent comparison to Mt. Vesuvius in the amount of damage and the fact it completely barried a huge roman city. What about the year without a summer which was a volcanic caused winter during summer.
What about the dust bowl. In oklahoma peoples homes were barried in dust and they died trapped. there was so much dust poeple died from breathing it. There were plagues of insects during the dust bowl. During the dust bowl the average temp about 112 degrees.
I could go on and on about disaster in history. Its normal. Its what happens on our planet.
We can't control it. We don't really even know how it all works yet we are going to keep third world countries from advancing to reduce CO2 and we are going to slowly destroy our soceity and take peoples freedoms to reduce CO2 emission which will ultimately have no effect.

What do the scientist really have to say?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

[billvon 2,473]

>Do you have any idea of what cap n trade and other taxes will cost in
>the long run and short run?

Quite a lot in both the short term and the long term. The reason to consider such measures would be to avoid even higher costs in the long term.

For example, let's say that one of the results of warming is reduced rainfall in the Sierra Nevadas (which is happening already) and in the West in general. What would it cost to lose 1/3 the water that is supplying LA? Trillions would be a low estimate.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Do you have any idea of what cap n trade and other taxes will cost in
>the long run and short run?

Quite a lot in both the short term and the long term. The reason to consider such measures would be to avoid even higher costs in the long term.

For example, let's say that one of the results of warming is reduced rainfall in the Sierra Nevadas (which is happening already) and in the West in general. What would it cost to lose 1/3 the water that is supplying LA? Trillions would be a low estimate.

Even if this is true, the yet to been seen costs caused by such taxes would make the costs of the topics you raise look minimal by comparison IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>the yet to been seen costs caused by such taxes would make the costs
>of the topics you raise look minimal by comparison IMO

How much did the Manhattan Project cost us in the long run? The Apollo Program? Both were tremendously expensive; the most expensive programs of their kind ever. Did the technology we received, and the science we learned, justify their cost?

Any significant effort to reduce the rate of increase of our CO2 emissions will involve the development of new technology, technology that will allow the US to take the lead in emerging energy technologies. Like the Manhattan Project, it will give us a strategic advantage over countries that don't have such technology.

Is that worth it? Perhaps. We are already seeing benefits from such efforts in the past.