Interesting Climate Model - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

raveneye · 11-17-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

At what point have I made an argument?

100 points for candor.

As you might remember from my last post, I said you haven’t made a single argument in this entire thread. Thanks for making my point for me, I appreciate it.

Quote:

At what point did I make false accusations?

Every single accusation you made about James Hansen was false, obviously. I think I see what you mean about your mind being closed.

Quote:

And why do you continually focus on me rather than the issues and questions?

What can you possibly offer of value on the scientific issues, when you just admitted you can’t support your opinion with an argument? There are a billion unfounded opinions in the world, why do you think yours is any better a number drawn out of a hat? What do you think a discussion is, a game of pin-the-tail on the donkey?

Quote:

Here is some more "cherry picked" stuff.

Another sweet example. Here's something to consider: if you want to score a debate point, you need to fire a neuron or two and make at least a rudimentary attempt to cobble together an argument. That will help you find the donkey. With this link, you just pinned the tail on your knee again, I'm afraid.

Quote:

Should I continue reading about global warming or should I just stop at the IPCC report?

Depends. If you just want to reinforce what you already “know” like any run of the mill global warming denialist, then you’re doing gangbusters right now. Keep it up and you'll "learn" a lot.

matthew330 · 11-17-2007, 07:17 AM

ace, you are a fucking saint. Your patience is astounding.

yes that's all i have to offer.

raveneye · 11-17-2007, 07:45 AM

By the way, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is out now and can be downloaded here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

They did an amazing job, as usual.

aceventura3 · 11-17-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

ace, you are a fucking saint. Your patience is astounding.

yes that's all i have to offer.

Actually, I have a pit bullish side to my personality. It has often been a terrible weakness, but I am working on it.

Ustwo · 11-17-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

ace, you are a fucking saint. Your patience is astounding.

yes that's all i have to offer.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Attributed to Albert Einstein, or even Benjamin Franklin.

Still love you though Ace

tecoyah · 11-17-2007, 12:45 PM

There comes a time when it seems fitting to weigh doubt against consequence. I can think of few situations where this is more clear than in this issue. While I also get confused , and frustrated by the many conflicting studies out there, I have come to rely on the people who study our climate and its influences to clarify some of the clouded Data. Sundays report is a case in point, as it takes quite a bit of information gathered by thousands of our leading scientists, and compiles what I consider to be a relatively accurate synopsis of what may be happening.

Quote:

Written by more than 2,500 top government-appointed scientists, Saturday's report contains a summary for policymakers attending the Bali talks, outlining the scientific evidence for global warming and ways to deal with it.

My personal stance is one of cautionary reaction, as I do not think it wise to ignore what is said and hope its all made up, there is far too much at stake to hide from this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...ate/index.html

ottopilot · 11-24-2007, 06:51 PM

raveneye · 11-25-2007, 03:53 AM

What is your position on the "survey" you just quoted, ottopilot?

Have you looked at the methods/analysis and come to the conclusion that it is a valid scientific poll with the result quoted?

Are you prepared to defend your position with an argument?

ottopilot · 11-25-2007, 11:11 AM

Ustwo · 11-25-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I do not deny that the earth appears to be in a warming trend. However, it is becoming more evident that we should take caution in the formulation of cause, effect and remedy. I remember that a consensus of scientists not too long ago believed we were doomed to a new man-made ice-age. One of the proposed remedies was to dump soot on the polar caps to melt the ice. I don't want knee-jerk measures invoked because some poorly informed people want to "feel good" about "making a difference", because they are blinded by politics, or are still in denial regarding Barry Bond's use of steroids

.

Its always been evident, which is perhaps the most infuriating thing about this. Nice tie in with the oil for food, with the UN you need to follow the money.

ottopilot · 11-25-2007, 12:27 PM

raveneye · 11-27-2007, 10:36 AM

[posting from my hotel room at a climate science conference]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

My comment on this topic was simply a direct response to your statement: "They did an amazing job, as usual". Shall I make that any clearer for you or are you trolling once again for another pointless and antagonistic confrontation aimed at wearing people down rather than participating in polite discourse?

No more than you have regurgitated ad nauseam a tedious and never-ceasing flow of highly biased sources (IMO including the IPCC report) that support your extreme viewpoint, I have respectfully offered another source of information citing results of a survey given to some of the very same participants of the IPCC report. For as much as I can accept the interpretation of the information gathered and presented by the IPCC report, I fail to see why we shouldn't calmly examine other sources (especially when some of the IPCC participants are claiming that their findings may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented). The information I have provided is open for discussion. I believe most of the other participants of this thread understand this very simple point whether they agree with the premise or not. Do you have an opinion to add to the discussion rather than answer my questions with questions to solicit an argument?

In my opinion, the United Nations is mostly corrupt and highly ineffective. One man's IPCC report on global warming is just another man's supporting document or appendix to a business plan for managing a multi-million dollar carbon credit scam in the image of "Oil for Food". The man-made global warming fanaticism is a political scare tactic and it is highly appealing to the so-called "useful idiots" (similar to, and described by the western communists in 1948 implying that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial, and was being cynically used by the Soviet Union, or another Communist state to perpetuate political subversion).

I do not deny that the earth appears to be in a warming trend. However, it is becoming more evident that we should take caution in the formulation of cause, effect and remedy. I remember that a consensus of scientists not too long ago believed we were doomed to a new man-made ice-age. One of the proposed remedies was to dump soot on the polar caps to melt the ice. I don't want knee-jerk measures invoked because some poorly informed people want to "feel good" about "making a difference", because they are blinded by politics, or are still in denial regarding Barry Bond's use of steroids

.

Wow, that’s a lot of bile in response to the question of whether Steve Milloy is credible, which, by the way, wasn’t answered. Why should anybody waste a millisecond of their time reading your link if you can’t vouch for it yourself?

And it does seem rather contradictory, in a funny sort of way, that the fountain of skepticism is blasting like Old Faithful whenever the most scientifically peer-reviewed document in the history of the planet is brought up, but somehow the fountain dries up like a Death Valley arroyo every time lawyer and Exxon spokesman Steve Milloy opens his mouth.

I can't wait for the next link, I always like to spend my evenings learning about science from well-connected lawyers.

river_ratiii · 11-27-2007, 11:51 AM

ottopilot · 11-27-2007, 01:23 PM

aceventura3 · 11-29-2007, 10:59 AM

Now it is all coming together, I am beginning to understand.

Quote:

Developed nations must immediately help fight global warming or the world will face catastrophic floods, droughts and other disasters, according to U.N. report released Tuesday. The report said rich nations will need to provide $86 billion by 2015 to "strengthen the capacity of vulnerable people" to cope with climate-related risks.

Some $40 billion of that should come from the U.S. government, according to the report.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...laysymbol=9999

The UN seems to want to control and distribute about $100 billion dollars. Given my feelings about the UN, I personally would never support this, and I now believe that the case for global warming is being exaggerated to promote the UN's political agenda.

P.S. - I already know I am a cynic. And the above is simply my opinion formed from what I have read and nothing more. But as they say, just follow the money.

Ustwo · 11-29-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Now it is all coming together, I am beginning to understand.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...laysymbol=9999

The UN seems to want to control and distribute about $100 billion dollars. Given my feelings about the UN, I personally would never support this, and I now believe that the case for global warming is being exaggerated to promote the UN's political agenda.

P.S. - I already know I am a cynic. And the above is simply my opinion formed from what I have read and nothing more. But as they say, just follow the money.

Nice catch. Now the pieces fall into place.

raveneye · 12-03-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

[posting from my hotel room at a climate science conference]

I assume the Kool-ade was plentiful?

Funny, I wouldn’t say the latest research in atmospheric physics is cyanide-laced Kool Aid. I doubt anybody would, except maybe people who are really threatened by it. It’s just data, you know? How can it possibly hurt you?

I guess we can call this the “I couldn’t care less about atmospheric physics, I have all the science I need right here inside my own head” brand of skepticism.

Or, “Data, I don't need no steenking data” style of skepticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Predictable, irrelevant AND annoying.

I know it can be a drag to have to think critically about what you find on the web, but the alternative is being as gullible as any seven-year-old. For example, you wouldn’t want to make the mistake of believing that Steve Milloy’s ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CONTEST is actually real, would you? That would be rather embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

In my opinion, the United Nations is mostly corrupt and highly ineffective.

Let’s see if we can unpack your “argument” here. You’re saying that you don’t like the U.N., therefore global warming is a massive, worldwide scientific hoax perpetrated by 100 countries, a dozen scientific academies, all scientific funding agencies, hundreds of scientific journals, and every independent published scientific review, with the necessary implication being that thousands of dastardly scientists have been secretly colluding in a massive conspiracy to fake their data for the last 30 years.

I hate to be an “annoying” skeptic, but, are there any logical steps between the premise and conclusion here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I remember that a consensus of scientists not too long ago believed we were doomed to a new man-made ice-age.

Uh, no, there never was a “consensus of scientists” that we’re headed into an ice age. You’ve been snookered by Steve Milloy again. You really need to try to be a bit more skeptical of random stuff you drink off the intertubes, even if it has a tangy grape flavor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I now believe that the case for global warming is being exaggerated to promote the UN's political agenda.

In other news, NASA been making a heck of a lot of money the last 50 years promoting their political agenda that the earth is round. I can’t believe they got away with it. Those sneaky bastards!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

But as they say, just follow the money.

Have you followed the money to Exxon yet, or did your clever sleuthing trail just plumb peter out?

aceventura3 · 12-03-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Let’s see if we can unpack your “argument” here.

I did not make an argument, I simply stated my opinion. I believe there is a difference between an expression of an opinion and an argument. We have been through this before, and I even tried to make note that what I wrote was simply my opinion. What I wrote was not a premise for an argument relative to global warming nor did I offer any support for my opinion. Your exercise below has no value.

Quote:

You’re saying that you don’t like the U.N., therefore global warming is a massive, worldwide scientific hoax perpetrated by 100 countries, a dozen scientific academies, all scientific funding agencies, hundreds of scientific journals, and every independent published scientific review, with the necessary implication being that thousands of dastardly scientists have been secretly colluding in a massive conspiracy to fake their data for the last 30 years.

Just for the record are you suggesting that the exaggeration of real scientific data has never been used to promote political agenda? Because that is all that I suggested in my opinion about the UN.

Quote:

I hate to be an “annoying” skeptic, but, are there any logical steps between the premise and conclusion here?

I stated that my opinion was formed based on my feelings about the UN and the thing I have read. The formation of an opinion does not always require logic.

In my opinion Maryann is hotter than Ginger. That is based on the way they look and their personalities, but they are fictitious characters played by actresses 30 years ago. There is no logic, there is no argument, it is just my opinion.

Quote:

Uh, no, there never was a “consensus of scientists” that we’re headed into an ice age. You’ve been snookered by Steve Milloy again. You really need to try to be a bit more skeptical of random stuff you drink off the intertubes, even if it has a tangy grape flavor.

Can you be more specific. If not "consensus", what was it? The view of one, many, none? Was there no scientific basis for the claim? What? Try to do more than just say how wrong I am, add value - I am still learning, are you?

Quote:

In other news, NASA been making a heck of a lot of money the last 50 years promoting their political agenda that the earth is round. I can’t believe they got away with it. Those sneaky bastards!

The shape of the earth is known and the issue has been settled. The earth is not a perfect sphere or round as you wrote, it is slightly oblong.

If NASA has a political agenda to promote the earth as a perfect sphere, I would not support that. Would you?

Quote:

Have you followed the money to Exxon yet, or did your clever sleuthing trail just plumb peter out?

Yes. I own some stock in the company. I figure if you can not beat them join them.

My lifestyle and standard of living is based on a big "carbon footprint". I have an interest in the status quo. I am biased, that is why I spend so much time trying to poke holes in the global warming theories that humans are responsible. It may be true, but I don't want it to be. But if it is true, I am willing to change, but all of my questions have to answered and my concerns addressed. And if an organization other than the UN is behind the cause. The UN has zero credibility in my book.

The risk that humans are responsible for global warming is why I ask questions and share my concerns. But you take the position of making fun of me, rather than working with me on the issue. Believe - there are millions of people just like me. If you want to help change the world, participate in the dialog and understand people like me. Making fun of my comments just ticks me off.

ottopilot · 12-05-2007, 07:14 PM

raveneye · 12-08-2007, 02:05 AM

I see, the popular press and movies like Planet of the Apes are your official, authoritative, definitive sources of scientific information. I guess we have to conclude then there’s a “consensus of scientists” that apes can talk too, ottopilot? And there’s a “consensus of scientists” that in a couple of years an asteroid will destroy the earth? And there was a “consensus of scientists” back in 1938 that Martians were going to take over the planet?

I’m sure it was really fun to wrangle up all those cute jpegs, but in the time it took you to find them you could have looked up what real scientists were saying in the first World Climate Conference in 1979. That would have told you what real scientists were saying rather than, uh, actors in movies.

Quote:

Keynote Address R. M. White
"In recent years we have come to appreciate that the activities of humanity can and do affect climate …. The potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion are already a major concern …. The implications of further projected increases [in carbon dioxide] are uncertain, but the weight of scientific evidence predicts a significant global surface temperature increase."

Review of the current research field by K. Hare
"Nevertheless the trends will ultimately affect the human economy, if they continue, or if they reverse and then endure. A cooling of 0.2 degree centigrade per decade would reduce world temperature by 1 degree if it continued for 50 years. This would be quite enough to have an impact on Northern Hemisphere agriculture. It might affect warm temperature agriculture beneficially, since many crops are grown above their optimum temperatures. There might also be associated changes of precipitation. On the other hand, if the trend reverses because of CO2 heating (see for example overview papers by Flohn, Mason, Munn and Machta, and Bolin), it will also create economic impacts. We conclude that temperature variability has much greater present impact that that due to long-term trends, but that such trends must be watched with the utmost care."

Overview of the field by B.J. Mason
"Section 5.2 Climatic effects of increasing CO2 …. Since it strongly absorbs the long-wave radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, higher concentrations of CO2 should produce higher temperatures in the troposphere by the so-called greenhouse effect but, because the CO2 in the stratosphere emits more infrared radiation to space than it absorbs, there should be a corresponding cooling of the stratosphere.

More sophisticated one-dimensional models, making some allowance for the vertical transport of heat by convection and for the radiative properties of water vapour and clouds, provide estimates for the globally averaged increase of surface temperature Ts, due to doubling of the CO2 concentration to 600 ppm, ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 deg K.

Overview of the field by H. Flohn
"Section 3.2. Initiation of a new ice age? …. At any rate, the transition from the present climate towards a large-scale glaciation -- which should hardly be expected before the radiation minimum 7000-13000 years in the future -- needs much more than 100 years before the ice expands beyond Baffin Island and the adjacent areas of the Canadian Archipelago. This is also suggested by the fact that the cooling of the Little Ice Age, extending over 300 years, was not sufficient to expand the Baffin ice sheet much beyond the high plateau …. Thus in a scenario of probable climatic evolution during the 21st century it is unnecessary to consider the evolution of a new ice-age. "

Special section: "Climate and the future"
"Climate will continue to vary and to change due to natural causes. The slow cooling trend in parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it will continue or not is unknown".

"[anthropogenic activities have] increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 15% during the last century and it is at present increasing by about 0.4% per year. It is likely that an increase will continue in the future .... it appears plausible that an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at high latitudes"
http://www.amazon.com/Proceedings-Wo...7106745&sr=8-1

There you have it.

So, again, where is that elusive “consensus of scientists” who thought we were plunging into an ice age? Were they the ones vaporized by those Martians on a Frank Capra move set? Or were they the ones eaten by the velociraptor on Dinosaurs' Picnic In Central Park?

It seems more likely to me that there was a “consensus of editors” of Time and Newsweek who thought that they could make some money with a little disaster hype from distorted comments from a couple people.

And the usual “skeptics” took the bait -- hook, line, sinker, rod, all the way up to the Wal Mart spinning reel.

Maybe we should amend this outlook to “I don’t need any science, I have all the science I need in the movie theater, see I even have JPEGS to prove it” style of Skeptical Scientific Inquiry. The world must be really, really simple to you folks.

ottopilot · 12-10-2007, 09:41 AM

Ustwo · 12-10-2007, 10:12 AM

ottopilot - very entertaining post. All hail the hypnotoad.

ottopilot · 12-10-2007, 10:16 AM

aceventura3 · 12-10-2007, 01:14 PM

I really enjoy IBD editorials. Here is a portion of one on the issue of global warming:

Quote:

On Aug. 27, 1883, Krakatoa, a volcanic island between Java and Sumatra, blew apart in perhaps the largest eruption in recorded history. The blast was heard thousands of miles away. So much gas and particulate matter were spewed into the stratosphere that the global temperature was cooled by an average of a degree well into the 20th century.

We mention this for two reasons: (1) to illustrate how much more influence nature can have on climate compared with soccer moms driving their SUVs, and (2) to call attention to events on another Indonesian island that also involve a lot of hot air and may also have a significant impact on humanity, if not the Earth's climate.

Some 15,000 politicians, civil servants, journalists and the occasional movie star from nearly 190 nations have descended on the resort island of Bali this week to save the Earth from the Industrial Revolution and to draft a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement that expires in 2012.

Never mind that Kyoto I's goals could not be met by signatories such as members of the European Union and that the goals, even if they were met, would have too small an effect on temperature to measure.

The London Telegraph reckons that 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide will have been generated in getting delegates such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Peace Prize-winner Al Gore and climate scientist Leonardo DiCaprio to the conference, many on private jets. This is equivalent to the carbon emissions of the African state of (sorry, Al) Chad.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...81664532453337

Ustwo · 12-10-2007, 01:21 PM

climate scientist Leonardo DiCaprio

I liked that one the best.

ottopilot · 12-10-2007, 01:48 PM

Ustwo · 12-11-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
December 11, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 7:45 AM ET

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c

The courage to do nothing....

You know, now that I hear this slogan of sorts, I think that is what is the core of the matter with global warming alarm and alarmists.

As humans we are wired to see cause and effect. If a rock rolls off cliff and narrowly misses you, your first reaction is to see what pushed it. Its a survival instinct, its far better to assume some sort of direct, dangerous cause and be wrong, than not be on your guard.

Global warming fits that nicely. We are so assured that something we are doing must be to blame that we feel its better to act on it than ignore it, even when ignoring it is really the best course of action.

dc_dux · 12-11-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The courage to do nothing....

You know, now that I hear this slogan of sorts, I think that is what is the core of the matter with global warming alarm and alarmists.

As humans we are wired to see cause and effect. If a rock rolls off cliff and narrowly misses you, your first reaction is to see what pushed it. Its a survival instinct, its far better to assume some sort of direct, dangerous cause and be wrong, than not be on your guard.

Global warming fits that nicely. We are so assured that something we are doing must be to blame that we feel its better to act on it than ignore it, even when ignoring it is really the best course of action.

Ustwo....you're old enough to remember the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s.

Many attribute the explosive growth in concern for the environment in part to the publication in the early 60s of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" that described the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Skeptics (mostly the chemical industry) accused her of shallow, unsupportable science....after all, she was just a bird-watcher.

"If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson," complained an executive of the American Cyanamid Company, "we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth." Monsanto published and distributed 5,000 copies of a brochure parodying "Silent Spring" entitled "The Desolate Year," relating the devastation and inconvenience of a world where famine, disease, and insects ran amuck because chemical pesticides had been banned.

The environmental movement grew so quickly that by 1969, Congress (and even Nixon) recognized a need for governmental action and enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, with the stated purposes:

* To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.

*To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.

*To enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation."

There were skeptics in Congress at the time, including current Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who complained: "Suddenly out of the woodwork come thousands of people talking about ecology."

Several months later, the first Earth Date celebration brought 20 million people into the streets across the country speaking out for environmental action.

And the next five years saw the passage of the first Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, etc. all of which had their skeptics,(mostly the affected industries, much like the role Exxon plays in today's skeptic community) questioning the science behind the environmental standards contained in those laws and complaining that these burdensome regulatory standards would seriously harm the country's long-term economic health.

Thankfully, Congress and the President at the time and every Congress and President since (at least until Bush, who has gutted many environmental laws) did not have "the courage to do nothing"

And you know the rest of the story.....the economy did not tank, new industries developed around the emerging technologies to assist in meeting the regulations, and best of all, the air, water, land was slowly restored.

If you were to take as much time to look at the mitigation proposals of the IPCC as you seem to do to find and post Mark Morano, junkscience.com and other extremist views and solutions, you might be surprised to see that they are moderate and sensible proposals, with concern for both economic and environmental sustainability.

But I suspect rather than discuss the IPCC mitigation proposals (or any proposals to lower greenhouse gas emissions), what we'll see follow here are more mindless videos, quizes, editorials, cartoons......

jorgelito · 12-11-2007, 09:39 PM

Thanks to Nixon, a true conservative.

Whether or not global warming is real, what's wrong with being conservative and conserving our resources and implementing better resource and environmental management? I would err on the side of caution. I don't know anything about the science everyone keep citing. Heck, I'm no Leonardo Di Caprio but I do have common sense and know not to shit in the drinking water and foul the air I breathe. Is that really so offensive? Is wanting to pollute less and have a nice clean place to live so offensive? This should be a classic conservative cause: to protect the environment.

Smart, sound, environmental policy need not be diametrically opposed to business. All the good that Nixon did to make air in California breathable again has been reversed.

We should be at the forefront of better environmental policy. End water subsidies to wasteful farmers. Let the free market decide water prices and then maybe people will stop wasting it and watering their driveways at high noon in the California desert (hey I'm looking at you neighbor!). Stop fucking up the soil with fertilizers. Agri-business is fucking up our economy. If we got off of oil, we could just give the finger to the Middle East and not be a hostage to their extremist governments. Our foreign policy need not be hostage to oil. Conservation makes sense. Not polluting makes sense. I don't care if it's soccer mom, jet-setting Bono, or hot air politicians and energy-hog homeowners like Al Gore who want to pollute - just stop it. It's not hard.

dc_dux · 12-11-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Whether or not global warming is real, what's wrong with being conservative and conserving our resources and implementing better resource and environmental management? I would err on the side of caution...

Smart, sound, environmental policy need not be diametrically opposed to business. All the good that Nixon did to make air in California breathable again has been reversed.

jorgelito..... count me as a fellow conservative on this issue

In regard to California, Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act last year "that establishes a first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases....to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020."

IMO, worthy of discussion as a viable model for federal legislation and similar in several respects to the IPCC recommendations.

Ustwo · 12-13-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...48a6&Issue_id=

And we get to the meat of the issue, and what all the hot air is really about. Extorting money from 'wealthy' nations, under UN control.

Does anyone really trust the UN with say 40 billion US dollars to 'distribute'?

jorgelito · 12-13-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

jorgelito..... count me as a fellow conservative on this issue

In regard to California, Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act last year "that establishes a first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases....to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020."

IMO, worthy of discussion as a viable model for federal legislation and similar in several respects to the IPCC recommendations.

Well fellow conservative, let's just hope that Ahnold's act is effective and can produce results. Funny coming from a guy who drives a Hummer but I am willing to give him a chance. Thanks for the link DC.

Positive spin: The air pollution in Southern California produces some of the most spectacular sunsets in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...48a6&Issue_id=

And we get to the meat of the issue, and what all the hot air is really about. Extorting money from 'wealthy' nations, under UN control.

Does anyone really trust the UN with say 40 billion US dollars to 'distribute'?

Instead of taxing, how about developing viable, profitable and sustainable alternatives? Taxing is such a cop out. With all the "brilliant" minds gathered the best they could come up with is taxing?

Ustwo, I think we all know that the UN is not the most fiscally competent entity.

dc_dux · 12-14-2007, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...48a6&Issue_id=

And we get to the meat of the issue, and what all the hot air is really about. Extorting money from 'wealthy' nations, under UN control.

Does anyone really trust the UN with say 40 billion US dollars to 'distribute'?

UStwo......why am I not surprised you highlight Marc Morano and one radical proposed solution from one "global tax advocate" rather than look at all of the suggested mitigation strategies.

BTW, Morano is doing a great job as the mouthpiece for Senator Inhofe and his energy industry contributors.

JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK) - Contributions by Sector (2006 senate campaign)

Have you bothered to read the IPCC mitigation summary report (pdf), which identifies a wide range of economically sustainable mitigation strategies? Yes, it includes taxes, as well as subsidies and tax incentives among many other suggestions, to lower emissions, provide for greater energy efficiencies of existing energy applications and technologies, and develop alternative energy sources.

I wouldnt support a global tax as proposed in the article; I dont support Kyoto. I think there should be broad international goals and standards, with each country determining its own policies and practices to meet those goals. I do believe the greatest emission contributors (US, China....) should bear a greater burden.

Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?

Were you one of those naysayers in the 70s (bah humbug...who needs clean air and clean water if its gonna cost me a few bucks)?

Ustwo · 12-19-2007, 09:02 AM

Koyto? Words on paper.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._schmyoto.html

Knowing that this is a conservative website, they include a link to the absolute numbers.

So exactly what are we suppose to be doing again, and how much money do we 'owe' the world again?

dc_dux · 12-19-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So exactly what are we suppose to be doing again, and how much money do we 'owe' the world again?

Ustwo...if you would read the IPCC mitigation report, rather than just conservative, global-warming denial websites, you might have a better understanding of the numerous moderate proposals.

The irony is that this morning, Bush signed an energy bill that has its core provisions:

- an increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passengers cars, SUVs and small trucks. The standard for cars today is 27.5 mpg and for trucks and SUVs 22.2 mpg.

- improved energy efficiency in construction of commercial buildings, improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs.

While the bill is being characterized by the WH as an "energy independence bill" rather than a "global warming solutions bills", the fact remains that the two provisions above are among the key "common sense" mitigation proposals put forth by the IPCC.

I should add that Bush was against a`specific mileage standard increase before he was for it, perhaps because this latest bill was veto-proof.

Dare I say that Bush is now showing more "common sense" than the global warming naysayers here?

"We make a major step ... toward reducing our dependence on oil, fighting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations ... a nation that is stronger cleaner and more secure," said the president.

White House fact sheet Energy Independence and Security Act

I would call it a small step rather than a major step...but better than standing still as some might prefer.

Ustwo....are you opposed to such reasonable steps (small or major) to energy independence while at the same time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

BTW, you still havent answered my previous question:
Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?

dc_dux · 12-26-2007, 03:59 PM

UStwo....its been more than a week since I replied to your latest post.

Care to respond to the questions I posed?

If it would be helpful, in response to the CO2 numbers you posted, I would add the fact that the US is first in the world in total CO2 emissions and 5th in the world in CO2 emissions on a per capita basis.

So what's wrong with taking some of the reasonable steps proposed by the IPPC to lower those emissions?

Ustwo · 12-28-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Gore Milks Cash Cow, Sego May Run Again: What France Is Reading

Review by Jorg von Uthmann
Enlarge Image/Details

Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France, where people long resisted the green creed.

Paris bookstores brim with guidebooks -- including one shaped like a toilet seat -- that tell readers how to help save our planet. Yet the dissidents refuse to shut up, even now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. government has agreed to negotiate a new global-warming treaty by 2009.

The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, ``Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet''), doesn't mince words.

He calls Gore a ``crook'' presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.

Allegre doesn't deny that the climate has changed or that extreme weather has become more common. He instead emphasizes the local character of these phenomena.

While the icecap of the North Pole is shrinking, the one covering Antarctica -- or 92 percent of the Earth's ice -- is not, he says. Nor have Scandinavian glaciers receded, he says. To play down these differences by basing forecasts on a global average makes no sense to Allegre.

He dismisses talk of renewable energies, such as wind or solar power, saying it would take a century for them to become a serious factor in meeting the world's energy demands.

Let Us Eat Cake

To his relief, France has taken another path: Almost 80 percent of its electricity comes from nuclear reactors. What's more, France has a talent for eating its cake and having it, too: Although it signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the country is nowhere near meeting the agreed targets.

``Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' is published by Plon/Fayard (240 pages, 18 euros).

Jean de Kervasdoue, a health expert, also stresses the benefits of nuclear power, noting that it emits only a small fraction of the greenhouse gas that comes from burning coal, oil or gas. His pet peeve, though, is genetically modified food.

In ``Les Precheurs de l'Apocalypse'' (``The Doomsday Preachers''), Kervasdoue decries how shrill and sometimes violent campaigners have prevented GM foods from gaining a foothold in Europe. They way they talk, he says, ``it sounds as if Martians are attacking the Earth.''

Insulin and Obesity

In fact, genetically modified organisms have proved highly beneficial to mankind, he argues, pointing to insulin, an artificially created hormone that has saved the lives of countless diabetes sufferers. A much greater danger to health and life expectancy, he says, is obesity -- even though the food that European fatsoes ingest is ``natural.''

Kervasdoue also has politically incorrect things to say about asbestos and Chernobyl. The motto of his book comes from Marcel Proust: ``Facts don't enter a world dominated by our beliefs.''

``Les Precheurs de l'Apocalypse'' is from Plon (254 pages, 19 euros).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gr8&refer=muse

Not much to add, its quite late and I've been virtually shooting people in the face all night, I think I'll have to revisit this thread to speak about this 'consensus'.

dc_dux · 12-29-2007, 06:35 AM

Ustwo...great post to continue to avoid a reasonable discussion!

The fact that Allegre is not a climate scientist or has never published a peer reviewed study on global warming or climate change is less meaningful than the fact that you had to resort to highlighting the words of a French socialist.

Why dont you want to discuss the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions?

aceventura3 · 03-13-2008, 10:37 AM

Looks like another global warming defector:

Quote:

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

Perhaps global warming models failed to give the earth enough credit for self-temperature regulation in the context of newly introduced sources of heat compared to greenhouse gases.

Quote:

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher%...ticle10973.htm

I recall being taken to task for having the nerve of even questioning the models used to support global warming, nice to have scientific support.

Here is a link to Miskolczi's research for those mathematically inclined.

http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

aceventura3 · 11-24-2009, 01:36 PM

I am beginning to wonder if "global warming" will end up being the biggest attempted hoax in the history of the human race.

Quote:

A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories may have misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Congress may probe leaked global warming e-mails | Politics and Law - CNET News

How this issue resolves should be interesting.

11-24-2007, 06:51 PM	#127 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:30 PM..

11-25-2007, 11:11 AM	#129 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:14 PM..

11-25-2007, 12:27 PM	#131 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:13 PM.. Reason: typo

11-27-2007, 11:51 AM	#133 (permalink)
river_ratiii Upright	.. Last edited by river_ratiii; 11-27-2007 at 12:13 PM..

11-27-2007, 01:23 PM	#134 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:04 PM..

11-17-2007, 07:17 AM	#122 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	ace, you are a fucking saint. Your patience is astounding. yes that's all i have to offer.

11-17-2007, 07:45 AM	#123 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	By the way, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is out now and can be downloaded here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm They did an amazing job, as usual.

11-25-2007, 03:53 AM	#128 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	What is your position on the "survey" you just quoted, ottopilot? Have you looked at the methods/analysis and come to the conclusion that it is a valid scientific poll with the result quoted? Are you prepared to defend your position with an argument?

12-05-2007, 07:14 PM	#139 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:28 PM.. Reason: new hynotoad link

12-10-2007, 09:41 AM	#141 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:53 PM..

12-10-2007, 10:12 AM	#142 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	ottopilot - very entertaining post. All hail the hypnotoad. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2007, 10:16 AM	#143 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:52 PM..

12-10-2007, 01:21 PM	#145 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	climate scientist Leonardo DiCaprio I liked that one the best. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2007, 01:48 PM	#146 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:51 PM..

12-11-2007, 09:39 PM	#149 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Thanks to Nixon, a true conservative. Whether or not global warming is real, what's wrong with being conservative and conserving our resources and implementing better resource and environmental management? I would err on the side of caution. I don't know anything about the science everyone keep citing. Heck, I'm no Leonardo Di Caprio but I do have common sense and know not to shit in the drinking water and foul the air I breathe. Is that really so offensive? Is wanting to pollute less and have a nice clean place to live so offensive? This should be a classic conservative cause: to protect the environment. Smart, sound, environmental policy need not be diametrically opposed to business. All the good that Nixon did to make air in California breathable again has been reversed. We should be at the forefront of better environmental policy. End water subsidies to wasteful farmers. Let the free market decide water prices and then maybe people will stop wasting it and watering their driveways at high noon in the California desert (hey I'm looking at you neighbor!). Stop fucking up the soil with fertilizers. Agri-business is fucking up our economy. If we got off of oil, we could just give the finger to the Middle East and not be a hostage to their extremist governments. Our foreign policy need not be hostage to oil. Conservation makes sense. Not polluting makes sense. I don't care if it's soccer mom, jet-setting Bono, or hot air politicians and energy-hog homeowners like Al Gore who want to pollute - just stop it. It's not hard.

12-19-2007, 09:02 AM	#154 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Koyto? Words on paper. The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following. * Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%. * Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%. * Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%. * Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%. In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.) * Maldives, 252%. * Sudan, 142%. * China, 55%. * Luxembourg, 43% * Iran, 39%. * Iceland, 29%. * Norway, 24%. * Russia, 16%. * Italy, 16%. * Finland, 15%. * Mexico, 11%. * Japan, 11%. * Canada, 8.8%. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._schmyoto.html Knowing that this is a conservative website, they include a link to the absolute numbers. So exactly what are we suppose to be doing again, and how much money do we 'owe' the world again? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-26-2007, 03:59 PM	#156 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	UStwo....its been more than a week since I replied to your latest post. Care to respond to the questions I posed? If it would be helpful, in response to the CO2 numbers you posted, I would add the fact that the US is first in the world in total CO2 emissions and 5th in the world in CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. So what's wrong with taking some of the reasonable steps proposed by the IPPC to lower those emissions? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-29-2007, 06:35 AM	#158 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ustwo...great post to continue to avoid a reasonable discussion! The fact that Allegre is not a climate scientist or has never published a peer reviewed study on global warming or climate change is less meaningful than the fact that you had to resort to highlighting the words of a French socialist. Why dont you want to discuss the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-29-2007 at 08:05 AM..