Below zero here with a windchill of -20 below zero and this will be the warmest in the next 5 days. I say the that the scam known as manmade global warming is a con job hoping to give power to the elite and remove freedom from the masses.
I believe the sun and its sunspot activity along with geo-thermal heating within our earths core is the culprit for causing the earths' temperature to rise slightly. Big deal!
If anyone believes that global warming is manmade then please explain what caused the previous ice-age glaciers to recede. Cars and the industrial revolution didn't occur then.
In the meantime I'll still drive my suv and luxuray car all over the place and not feel guilty one bit. Oh and the Kyoto treaty sucks big time.
Alpha, first and foremost, one should recognize that pollution and global warming are 2 different matters. And what was presented applies to you and me, that is, stop the bs. For example, if you weren't so concerned about your stocks, you wouldn't have permitted our leaders to transfer factories, and build new ones, in areas where wholesale disregard is shown to living with nature (China). You would be concerned that CO2 concentrations are not just emitted from factories, but absorbed by forests that are disappearing at breakneck speeds in the Southern Hemisphere. Lastly, you would be appalled that the country (China) that has the worst trend in pollution emmissions feels that the "rich" countries should pay for its transgressions. Your tax addresses nothing, really, except a wallett grab for a problem that is ill defined and can't be solved by throwing money at it.
YOur welcome, Canoodle. I hope you read the entire link, not just the criticism of political grandstanding. Samuelson does not dismiss global warming and in fact makes a hefty recommendation:
<What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.
Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.
It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.>
Global Warming and Hot Air
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, February 7, 2007; A17
You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.
Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.
Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.
Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009.
Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth -- lowering poverty, fostering political stability -- to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.
Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renewables" (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.
Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches, though the connection is unclear. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises from seven inches to almost two feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, frequent flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps).
I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and trade." It's environmental grandstanding -- politicians pretending they're doing something.
Duck, keep reading up. You are enhancing your abilities to discern earth cycle issues as well as human interference with them. And when you read something you don't understand, don't parrot it, try first to understand.
QWAK,canucanoe,You project your own IGNORENCE on to OTHERS when YOU fail to COMPREHEND, it is a problem YOU need to deal with because it BLINDS you to understanding WHY things happen and HOW they happen.
OBVIOUSLY complex mechanisems are far beyond your abilities to understand, perhaps you just prefer to believe in GOVERNMENT, MAGIC,SANTA and other CHILD LIKE explinations.
As the COLD less DENCE water from the glaciers and ice caps adds to the existing sea water it flows on top of the dencer sea water and turns OFF the natural convection currents IE. the GULF STREAM in particular. When that happens GLOBAL WEATHER is extreamly ALTERED.
When there is MORE WATER in the OCEANS and LESS locked in the ICE on land it also adds to the equasion and causes much higher sea levels.
You may also want to do a GOOGLE search on the "HARP" project which is atempting to add large amounts of FOCUSED radiated energy in to the upper atmosphear so that WEATHER can be used as a WEAPON and THAT is somthing that is NEW for mankind TOO!
had previously been seen as a very good thing. America's breadbasket was under a mile of ice, now it feeds humankind. There was no New York harbor to receive the huddled masses 15,000 years ago - the glacier stretched past Long Island! So Duck... regarding your comment:
>>>There is NO QUESTION that the glaciers ans polar ice caps are melting and receading and by examining many thousands of years of ice cores, what is happening is abnormal in that it is happening so quickly. <<<
We don't need no "stinkin'" (sic) core samples, we all know glaciers have been disappearing for 15,000 years. As for:
>>>Mankind is the WILD CARD in the equasion and because of the extream over population we can even be concidered the INFESTATION that is CAUSING the imballance.<<<
Infestation? Maybe it is the ice that was the infestation and the imbalance. Your science stinks. It is poly science. Useless.
Duck, I'm sorry, I don't see that what you are presenting has anything to do with our prior conversation. I simply pointed out that the science you presented previously is wrong. This extra fluff stuff doesn't change anything. But it is good to see that you are trying to learn. It would be good, and proper, to thank me for motivating you to do so. Best would be an acknowledgement that good social manners require a retraction of your prior Yellow Journalist posting with what you just discovered as the truth.
QWAK,canucanoe,Which is heavier/dencer, a gallon of DISTILLED water or a gallon of SEA water?
Also the FLUID DINAMICS of COLD and WARM water, are a big part of the EQUASION!
I supose YOU believe you had lots of STUPID TEACHERS TOO, because when YOU failed to understand and COMPREHEND what THEY were trying to TEACH and SHARE with you, THEY must have been STUPID because YOU can NOT accept that YOU are IGNORENT or can not comprehend any subject.
There is NO QUESTION that the glaciers ans polar ice caps are melting and receading and by examining many thousands of years of ice cores, what is happening is abnormal in that it is happening so quickly. Mankind is the WILD CARD in the equasion and because of the extream over population we can even be concidered the INFESTATION that is CAUSING the imballance.
My, my Canoodle... Look what: NeoHead has grown Rabbit's Ears.
Without commenting upon your postulation, I merely pointed out that the scientific communitty of those countries you appeared to praise and I quote you: "have led the world in science, creativity, innovation and productivity," are part of the 90% consensus that man is contributing to global warming.
I suggest you learn to read your own postings before you respond like an impetuos child.
I do acknowledge you could likely learn alot from Homer Simpson. Of course you would have to open your mind to some hard facts. I won't hold my breadth.