Clem Kadiddlehopper - 28 January 2008 08:23 AM

Then if these global warming “kooks” do NOT blame man for it all, then nature is just running it’s course, so there’s no need to panic, right?

I think the people who think that man has nothing to do with global warming are just as kooky as the ones who say man is completely responsible for global warming. The fact of the matter is that global climate is such a complex thing that nobody has it all figured out. Not the best scientists. Not the right wing pundits.

If you look at the historical record of average global temperature vs carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it is pretty clear there is a direct correlation. Is it the only factor? Of course not.

I think for the first time in the history of the planet, a species has evolved that has the technological and engineering ability to alter the climate, however slightly.

If mankind works towards optimizing the climate for his own survival, then it will be his single greatest enduring achievement in history.  It he choses not to, time will quickly erase all evidence of his existence.

ConcernedCitizen - 01 February 2008 11:59 PM

I think for the first time in the history of the planet, a species has evolved that has the technological and engineering ability to alter the climate, however slightly.

If mankind works towards optimizing the climate for his own survival, then it will be his single greatest enduring achievement in history.  It he choses not to, time will quickly erase all evidence of his existence.

Boxer-Sanders Bill S-309, supported by Clinton and Obama (and probably McCain) will cost us 366 BILLION ANNUALLY by 2015, or $4500 per family of four, every year, to “fix” the environment.

Assuming we successfully lower the earth’s temperature 2 degrees with all this money, what will we do when earth begins to cool again? Will we then have to spend double the amount to RAISE the temperature 2 degrees?

Better to let nature run its course like it has done for some time now.

Babalú - 01 February 2008 07:53 PM

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 28 January 2008 08:23 AM

Then if these global warming “kooks” do NOT blame man for it all, then nature is just running it’s course, so there’s no need to panic, right?

I think the people who think that man has nothing to do with global warming are just as kooky as the ones who say man is completely responsible for global warming. The fact of the matter is that global climate is such a complex thing that nobody has it all figured out. Not the best scientists. Not the right wing pundits.

If you look at the historical record of average global temperature vs carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it is pretty clear there is a direct correlation. Is it the only factor? Of course not.

I believe it’s been pretty well proven that temperature change causes increases or decreases in carbon dioxide levels, not the opposite, as Al Gore claimed.

Ok.....let’s see.....we’re clearing the Amazon Jungle and other forest land to either grow corn, or to replace crops formerly grown on farming land now devoted exclusively to corn. All this to make an alternative fuel that is 25% less efficient than gasoline.

Next thing you know they’ll have a meeting in some remote little island nation in the pacific, for the purpose of saving the environment, where everybody flies in on their private jet.

Oh..that’s right, they’ve already done that.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/healthscience/biofuel.php

I only pray that the earth starts into its natural cooling cycle soon, before these kooks destroy it trying to save it.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 07 February 2008 09:48 AM

I believe it’s been pretty well proven that temperature change causes increases or decreases in carbon dioxide levels, not the opposite, as Al Gore claimed.

Pretty well proven?  Care to post a link to support this claim?

Babalú - 08 February 2008 05:37 PM

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 07 February 2008 09:48 AM

I believe it’s been pretty well proven that temperature change causes increases or decreases in carbon dioxide levels, not the opposite, as Al Gore claimed.

Pretty well proven?  Care to post a link to support this claim?

Here’s one:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Several others point out as well, that temperature changes first, CO2 follows

Imagine that! Here’s some scientists who think the earth heats and cools because of the SUN. How wacky is THAT? Then again, maybe that’s why it’s cooler at night.

They stepped over the line when they stated that the sun has more effect on temperature than all the SUV’s in the world.. Al ain’t gonna like it.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Obviously there are many things that effect climate and most of them depend on the Sun’s radiation.  CO2 that man puts in the air can help collect that radiation. Particles that man also puts in the air can block some of that radiation. Volcanos can also put both CO2 and particles in the air. It appears that a significant warming of the oceans could cause large releases of CO2 trapped in hydrates in the oceans. The Sun’s output does vary and extra CO2 might keep the planet warm during a decrease in that output and prevent an ice age but what happens when solar output goes back up? Does the Earth cook like Venus? In the end, what we do might not matter or it could make all the difference.

Articles from non-scientific sites that politicize the issues and link back and forth to other non scientific sites in an attempt to confuse the public are worthless. Funding for some of these sites can probably be traced back to oil companies. I have tried to use the links to data on some of the linked sites and the links don’t work.

I’m old enough that it won’t matter to me and I would be wary of scientists that are also in that age group that won’t live to see the results. There is a lot of money in the oil business as we have seen yet another year of record profits. Oil companies would likely pay some of that money to get conflicting information that allows them to continue business as usual for as long as possible.

Read the following and you’ll find that all the newly minted “scientists” ie. politicians and movie stars with too much time on their hands, don’t have a clue about weather.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 07 February 2008 09:45 AM

Boxer-Sanders Bill S-309, supported by Clinton and Obama (and probably McCain) will cost us 366 BILLION ANNUALLY by 2015, or $4500 per family of four, every year, to “fix” the environment.

You didn’t read the MIT study did you?

It says that the revenue stream distributes $4500 TO every family of 4:

4.4 Potential Revenue from an Allowance Auction or a Greenhouse Gas tax
As noted previously, there are various ways to administer a policy designed to create price
incentives for reducing GHG emissions. In a cap-and-trade system the allowances can be given
away or they can be auctioned. Or the emissions penalty could be set directly by a CO2 tax. In
the case of the tax or allowance auction a stream of revenue is generated. The CO2-e price times
the number of tons of allowances distributed in any period gives the total value of the allowances
distributed, or alternatively the amount of auction or tax revenue that could have been collected.
Options for use of the revenue include lump-sum distribution to households, reducing labor or
capital taxes, or spending the funds for other purposes (e.g., R&D or low-income fuel
assistance). In Section 6.4 we explore the potential effects of revenue recycling. Here our interest is in the gross amount of potential revenue generated, or alternatively the size of the asset
transfer involved in a lump sum distribution.
As can be seen from Table 6 the potential revenue streams are substantial, ranging in just the
first period of the policy from $130 billion in the 287 bmt case to $366 billion in the 167 bmt
case.

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf

Not to mention the fact that the air is easier to breathe because of the additional reduction of air pollution.

Then let’s consider what the White House is already doing to squander hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax-payer dollars.

The Iraq war has cost us over $1 trillion, and what did we get out of it?

A bunch more terrorists?  Check!

A failed Middle East foreign policy?  Check!

The loss of over 3000 brave US soldiers?  Check!

The loss of US ethical standing in the world?  Check!

The loss of pallets of weapons, cash and high explosives in Iraq?  Check!

The reputation as an invader, occupier and torturer?  Check!

Seems to me that if we had spent $1 trillion on capturing bin Laden, the financier of the Sept 11 attacks, all those other wannabes wouldn’t be so emboldened.

I’d say people like you should never be allowed near the public purse again.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 07 February 2008 09:45 AM

Better to let nature run its course like it has done for some time now.

I agree, but we can’t do that until we STOP pumping hundreds of gigatons of carbon pollution into the air.

You see, the problem is that we are already forcing changes on nature, and it’s about to snap back on us.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 08 February 2008 03:47 PM

Ok.....let’s see.....we’re clearing the Amazon Jungle and other forest land to either grow corn, or to replace crops formerly grown on farming land now devoted exclusively to corn. All this to make an alternative fuel that is 25% less efficient than gasoline.

Biofuel is a boondoggle that Bush promoted only because he gave all his cronies a chance to invest in it before he announced he was subsidizing it with our tax dollars.

Ethanol is a bad idea that cost more energy to make than it produces.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 08 February 2008 03:47 PM

I only pray that the earth starts into its natural cooling cycle soon…

According to the geologic record, global warming triggers ice ages.  Be careful what you pray for.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 27 February 2008 09:26 AM

Read the following and you’ll find that all the newly minted “scientists” ...
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

I gotta tell you, Michael Asher is not the kind of blogger you want to be seen quoting.

First of all, he discredited himself when he went after Naomi Oreskes.  Turns out he misrepresented her methodology, misunderstood her work, then based his conclusions on his own ineptness.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966

Then we have the fact that his blogs routinely quote right-wing “news” sources rather than scientific work of any kind.  Remember when he quoted a London medical researcher (Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte) who claimed that one of his sources was “Dr.” Geri Halliwell (of the Spice Girls??).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html

Then we have the fact that Asher is a paid consultant who writes anti-environmental pieces for James Inhofe, disgraced former chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.

As a newly minted “scientist-wannabe”, Asher is con man who’s tradecraft is fooling only the feeble-minded.

I’ll read that again. I’m curious how a 366 billion annual cost to taxpayers is going to PUT $4500 in every family’s pocket