brownie: It is a compelling argument, until you spend more time thinking about it. Using the insurance analogy (I will avoid homeowners given that it is mandated by lenders in many cases): would you pay insurance premiums before knowing what your actual risk was? Would you enter into a contract without knowing what the premium was? We do not yet know what the risk is, nor the actual economic costs. Again, should we not be as educated as possible before making any decisions?

I am not saying that AGW is spurious. I am saying that we do not yet know enough about the science to spend trillions of dollars to combat the problem. I find it ridiculous that Al Gore and so many media outlets declare the debate over, while never debating those that hold different opinions, nor publishing stories that contradict their beliefs. Science is supposed to be a search for truth. Consensus is therefore a stupid term when relating to science; it is better to be in the right than in the majority. Bear in mind that until very recently Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations would have been the consensus view as far as the governing laws of the universe.

Feel free to spend all your money on this, don’t let me stop you. I have no problem with that. It is when the watermelons want to force me to contribute and waste billions on this that I disagree.

It’s like homeowner’s insurance – just because you bought it and never needed it doesn’t mean it wasn’t money well spent.

It is NOT based on scientific fact, it is, however, based on a political agenda, one who’s major tenet is that Western Civilization is somehow “BAD”.

No, Al, the Polar Bears are NOT all drowning, the ice caps are not going to disappear and the oceans are not going to raise 30 feet by the end of the century

I am all in favor of clean, efficient energy. I actually live that way as much as possible, unlike the Al Gore’s of the world who want YOU to have to change YOUR lifestyle to accommodate THEIR goals, but EXEMPT THEMSELVES from the same restrictions.

The most relevant charts are at pp 28 & 29.

Looking at the Greenland ice core samples, every time CO2 goes above 350 ppm, really bad shit happens, really fast.

We’re currently at 385 ppm. We were at 280ppm back in 1850.

Former Weather Channel Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo rejected the hype surrounding the recent Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse in Western Antarctica. “The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. (LINK) “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf&Issue_id

Anyone who is really interested in the amount and extent of ice in Antarctica should look at these charts: Southern Hemisphere sea ice area and South Polar sea ice anomaly, which were posted by the Polar Research Group of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois.

If anything, the charts show no warming tend nor any negative sea ice anomaly.

I took a look at that piece in Toronto Star about China’s “quiet leadership” on the environment. It was quite an eye-opener: I hadn’t realized Walter Duranty is still alive and working in Canada under a pseudonym.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4302904746669786959&q=the+global+warming+swindle&total=382&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Free of charge. That is, no carbon tax required…even though that coal-fired plant is providing power to your home computer and data-modem.

Scare tactics such as this are the same scare tactics that “Al Queda” uses. Don’t believe the fear-mongering, Nobel-Prize winning Al Gore either.

Thought you all might like to know there is “Global Warming” on Mars and Jupiter too. Google and find the NASA articles …it’s true. Yes, the Polar Caps on Mars are melting too.

…which just proves that the “increase” in temperature comes from the VERY SOURCE of *ALL* our planet’s atmospheric heat: The SUN.

Thought you might like this too:

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-wants-to-sue-al-gore-for-global-warming-fraud/

That’s right…the very founder of The Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud!!!

The words “politicians” and “liar” go together like “taxation” and “regulation”.

…all this coming from someone who actually DOES value fuel-economy and clean air!!! But I don’t like being lied to…not at the global level, nonetheless.

Well spring still hasn’t come here yet. It snowed 5″ yesterday and the Tigers opener is Monday and might well get snowed out.

The Arctic ice is back to normal or greater due to extreme cold temps in the Arctic this year(the MSM seems to have missed this-deliberatly I assume)and it is still in the minus 30’s in the Arctic. Antartic ice is also at a high historical level and somebody should tell the ’scientists’ that icebergs are not a new invention.

So a localized event provides proof of a global phenomenon. Well, in response, I say that Eastern Ontario and Quebec have had more snow this winter than any other time in the past 3 or 4 decades. So, using the same logic as the NYT, I guess global warming must be untrue, because we have so much snow.

The NYT is just sensationalizing. Global warming does not mean that everything is going to get hot; but rather it’s the extreme change in averages going both ways, not just getting warmer. One big unknown is what happens to the Gulf Stream if all this fresh water from the glaciers slows down or completely stops the flow? We could actually see a dramatic cool down in a lot of places.

The development of electronic fuel injection represented a monumental leap in the development of the internal combustion engine. I doubt we’ll see this kind of large-scale improvement again. Will there be further advancements? Yes, but nothing as significant as what came about since the as crisis and emissions regulations of the 70’s.

First, how does this invalidate my argument? There is room for improvement, perhaps not as much as we have seen or as rapidly, but improvment nonetheless.

Second, even our most efficient IC engines can’t achieve even 50% efficiency. I know that there’s a law of dimishing returns, but it seems to me that we can achieve something of signifigant value here. And that’s just powerplant efficiency. Lighter materials will have an effect as well.

I have great faith in the ingenuity of human beings. My point is that if we take up the challenge, we will definitely benefit.

Still, it is doing far more than Canada, the U.S. or just about any other place to clean up its act. It has begun to impose regulations and targets for car emissions, renewable fuels, carbon storage, forest renewal, energy efficiency and industrial pollution. It’s investing heavily in new technologies, including “clean” coal and alternative power sources. In many ways it’s putting us to shame.

China is doing more…because it HAS to do more just to reach the same level of environmental protection that citizens of the United States and Canada already enjoy. And in many cases, it is only doing what the United States and Canada have already done.

As a comparison, the contestants on The Biggest Loser have done alot to lose weight…because all of them are at least 75-100 pounds overweight. They must do more than someone who is 5 pounds over his or her ideal weight, so even if they do lose 75-100 pounds, they are not necessarily healthier than the person who is already relatively fit.

As for global warming – there is no doubt that the earth’s temperatures have fluctuated throughout history, and it’s entirely plausible that we are in a warming phase. Whether this warming trend is manmade is still open to debate. Good, lively discussions on this very topic have appeared at Edmunds.com and the Volokh Conspiracy (a blog), and let’s just say that there is still plenty of room for debate on whether global warming is being driven by manmade factors.

But if that’s the case, what can we do about it? If we can’t prevent it, maybe we’re better off just preparing for it? Maybe we’re just screwed?

Well, as an electronics teacher; walk me through the proof of the atomic theory, that electrons exist. Scientific theories don’t have “proof” the way you can prove 2+2=4; but if they have plenty of evidence from various sources and no viable competing theories they’re good enough to work with until something more precise comes along. I could demonstrate to you that F=MA, but of course that’s not true; ask Einstein. The evidence for AGW is remarkably solid; the debate now raging in the scientific world is how much the temp rises as the carbon dioxide rises, and how soon that’s going to get us into real hot water.

But that always leaves room for somebody to shake their head and say “no, not convinced yet”. Kind of like the folks who still don’t believe that smoking causes cancer; by coincidence, many of the same folks who made a living telling us that there was lots of scientific doubt about that are the ones now telling us there’s lots of scientific doubt about AGW. Pat Michaels, for example. That’s why scientific theories are tested by making predictions in advance then seeing if they are verified, rather than by looking at results after the fact and deciding whether they are good enough or not. In any other field of science, the combination of “it’s not warming, it’s warming but it’s not human-caused, it’s human-caused but there’s nothing we can do about it, we could do something about it but it’s too expensive, it’s the sun, it’s cosmic rays, more carbon dioxide and more heat will bring about a golden age of agriculture, if we don’t keep the temp up there will come an ice age” would not be considered a unified rational response, rather a bunch of squabbling fringe theories.

So, see if this doesn’t convince you: Hansen’s temperature predictions from 20 years ago, with the actual temperature data plotted.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/images/Hansen-2006.png
Scenario A is if carbon dioxide output accelerated; scenario C is if it slowed; scenario B is his “most likely” prediction; and as labeled, red is data from weather stations, black is land/ocean measurements.

Of course, somebody won’t be convinced by the fact that a (now superseded by models with many more things factored in) model predicted 20 years of temperature accurately, if they have a better model. Or even one remotely close. I have an open mind; I’ve been asking skeptics for years now to show me any climate theory not involving AGW that made any predictions which were verified, haven’t seen any yet. Haven’t seen any climate theory not involving AGW that even made any predictions at all, in fact. Because that would put them at risk.

The Buick Lacrosse is a big seller in China.
how does the Star explain that? I call BS on the red loving Star.

http://www.chinacarforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3462