I'm a Denier!

[Smith]

There is also the errant assumption global warming would be negative thing. Longer growing seasons would benefit nearly every part of the world. Just sayin.

[Guest BEARMAN]

Climate change, aka...weather...has been changing for millions and millions of years.

So how can these Jackwagons deduce what the climate will or will not do, based on a little over a hundred years worth of data.

Answere....they can't....ain't no friggin way.

35 years or so ago, they all were saying we're entering an ice age, and we're all going to freeze to death. Burrrrrrrr!....how'd that prediction work out for 'em.

One thing for certain, and two things for sure....No one gets out alive.

Now all you wannabe scientist...put that in your pipe, and smoke it! .......Just my

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wow. They shoulda just called Limbaugh . Keep science out of politics???

Hi Mike

Admittedly the majority answer sounds luddite. However, the question did not offer a "none of the above" option. Perhaps the majority decided that "Keep science out of politics" was the nearest choice to "none of the above"?

The question was posed this way--

Which policy options do you support?

* a carbon tax

* cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits)

* increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development

* cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers

* keeping science out of the political process

[Guest Jamie]

I like "keep the political process out of science" better....

[Guest drv2fst]

I'm a software developer. I was researching examples of problem sets with millions of divergent data points for a project that I was working on. I found a research paper on global climate trends that was eye opening. I did not save it at the time but I will try to find it again and post it here.

They tracked climate change for over 4 million years using ice cores, and sea bed cores. There have been many warming and cooling periods that have nothing whatsoever to do with human intervention. There is no way from the data that I saw to conclude there there is any truth to human influenced global warming. Global warming does happen from time to time in earth's history but it does not depend on us to help it along.

What I find frustrating about the Al Gore camp is that they took some really good causes and tied them to their big lies. I like recycling. Everyone should try to reduce waste. We do need to work diligently towards energy independence. We should work hard to find and develop renewable energy sources like wind, solar, micro-hydroelectric, .... Those are all good causes. Why did the Global Warming guys have to take all these good causes and align them with their BS agenda?

Not the same report but shows similar trends.

Another view. We weren't driving cars for the last 5 millions years.

Seriously, we did not do the warming thing. It happens with our without our help.

Edited November 15, 2010 by drv2fst

[Guest 6.8 AR]

To make his lies less inconvenient.

[Oh Shoot]

I've come to my own conclusion about whether we are affecting climate change in any significant way:

it doesn't matter -- the population will be drastically thinned due to more timely influences long before world climate can possibly accomplish the same.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think most of us agree with that, OS

[Mark@Sea]

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mark, that needs to be pounded into the heads of some on this forum. That's all this garbage is about.

[EwokPoacher]

Wow, did you even read any of the article, or just the headline?

The cliff notes version:

Man made climate change is real

For a country to become rich, it has to burn coal, oil, or gas

Industrialized countries bear more responsibilities, but emerging countries like India & China show no regard to limiting emissions

"in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient."

we have known since 1995 what causes the greenhouse effect, and our responsibility starts there, not before (this, in defense to other countries' claim that developed countries own a larger historical responsibility)

And the real meat of the story:

"Developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." (limiting a developing country's emissions is going to have a larger impact ontheir economy, so getting them to sign on will be difficult)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, I did. He wants to play Robin Hood with the developed countries wealth.

Did I miss something?

He made broad statements that prove nothing and wishes to change things by

being a good communist.

[Major Kong]

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

What he said.

[EwokPoacher]

Yes, I did. He wants to play Robin Hood with the developed countries wealth.

Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed the entire point of the article. It was about the problem with convincing countries like China & India to limit their burning of oil & coal, which is like telling them we want to control their economic growth.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He used those countries as examples, but did not limit anything. What exactly does the UN IPCC

have to do with our global climate, other than trying to police it? To replace a sovereign nation

with the UN as a world government. If you think this is a kinder, gentler approach to fixing the

world's woes, that's fine, but I reached a different conclusion after I must have mis-read the

article.

The IPCC knows that China couldn't care less what the UN says. He admitted it was about

money and that is redistribution, not phony concern for the climate. Politics! The wrong kind.

[mikegideon]

I've come to my own conclusion about whether we are affecting climate change in any significant way:

it doesn't matter -- the population will be drastically thinned due to more timely influences long before world climate can possibly accomplish the same.

- OS

THIS is something I can get behind. We're in desperate need of some herd thinning.