On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Not sayin' I'm scared of the Chinese, their culture is richer and far more interesting than many. I'm talking about integration and transition of geographical locale as the result of en-mass economic growth coupled with NO sense of culture or history here because we're programmed to forget events leading up to the "NOW" by the criminals in charge.
Culture shock in a country already fucked 8-ways from Sunday socially, like the U.S. ...as with the Hispanic population here being used as pawns in politics to craft agendas that best suit the 1% of the fucking world, whom commoners (landless peasants) seldom interact with anyhow.

I do fear the surveillance future, the privatized security future, and the pay-for-everything including air future, because I'll have to fucking live in it after having watched this slow-train-wreck for 45 years without having to wonder if I am wandering into the shit, that is the system.
Talk about shock, my kids are gonna be watched by drones with pinrods working for the government looking at the monitor. Not the world I envision for anyone, much less my kin.

Stop being so fucking scared....JEEEZ! How about, terrified for the future of civilization and at the same time not giving a fuck because it is what it is?

Yer right....Maybe I need to lay off the thinking and just get laid er sumpthin...maybe volunteer down at the children's hospital, get some real perspective on living in the now.

@rbar I didn't call you a socialist, I don't know you that well! It was about your portrayal of capitalism. Also, I apologize for referring to free market capitalism, subject of this topic, as just "capitalism", that caused understandable confusion. I completely agree with you that some of those "isms" fall under a broader definition of capitalism, as they're social orders dependent on private property rights. Those who advocate free markets like me, however, really tend to consider free market capitalism as the only real one, while variations are just "less capitalistic" or not capitalism at all.

Any economic system is as cooperative as the next? Hmm... I don't know, rbar. Would you say there's as much cooperation inside North Korea as there is in South Korea? The old East and West Germanies? Surely any country with a lesser economy enjoys much less cooperation of their citizens among themselves (or with other countries) than a country where policy favors economic growth, no? Very common in North Korea, the "do what I tell or you'll starve in a concentration camp" approach, just isn't my favorite definition of cooperation. Coincidence or not, their economy is shit.

You raise a very important issue of limited resources, that wikipedia article on Capitalism explains better than I ever could, that counter-arguments to "those criticisms of the depletion of finite natural resources consists of the economic Law of Diminishing Returns, opportunity cost, and scarcity in economics". Interesting stuff.

My issue is with you portrayal of capitalism as ever-increasing competitiveness, because it's kind of biased and overlooks the abundance of cooperation. Imagine looking at a crowded night club and describing it simplistically as "a bunch of people struggling for the attention of the opposite sex". Seems pretty accurate if one hates night clubs. There is competition going on, specially for the most popular people, but what about all the other people enjoying each other's company over drinks, talking, flirting, and laughing, couples making out and enjoying the music on the dance floor? Who would describe those activities as purely competitive?

There is a lot of supply and demand in a capitalistic economy, not trying to sound like an economist, but competition is proportional to the difference between supply and demand. So what about where supply is meeting demand, should we just overlook the huge amount of cooperation happening there?

I find it amusing that you ask "What? What policy?", then, at the end of the same paragraph, write "The way the bailout happened is ... utter crap, but that is a different story all together." No, it's not a different story, the bailouts are government/central bank policy, partly the answer to your important question. Stepping in and handing out money to bankers who should have been punished by their excessive risk-taking with bankruptcy, is the exact opposite of letting free markets work.

To try to answer your persistent request for examples of free markets, if you didn't realize it yet, free markets are not very compatible with central banks, institutions that have a legal monopoly over what happens to half of a country's economy (usually half of all economic transactions involve money). Now, do you know how many countries have central banks today? Except for Monaco and Andorra, all of them.

Centuries ago, there wasn't a single country in the world where people enjoyed freedom of expression. That fact could be considered an obstacle to its adoption, but never a testament to its impracticality.

@renatojj Ah, its nice to be called a socialist for once. Where I come from, they call me a right wing capitalist
Any economic system is as cooperative as the next. That is the definition of an economic system, a system where economic transactions take place, ie cooperation. So capitalism is NOT more (or less) cooperative than other isms. (And mercantilism and corporate capitalism (corporatism right?) are forms of capitalism ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

Definition of capitalism:
"an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" - oxford dictionary
Emphasis is on "for profit". So yes, all capitalist are per definition profit seeking. Relentless is something that follows Darwin. Those who are more relentless get higher profits and have more money to grow, invest, invent, etc. They eventually push out less relentless profit seekers so the relentless ones are the only ones left.
And remember you said them first, not me. I just said that capitalism tries to achieve profit and as competition drives prices down one way to do so is to minimize cost, ie become more efficient. So there is always a drive for efficiency in capitalism.
I am not against profit seeking, I believe that capitalism is the system that pushes the most growth in most regions, be it economic growth, technological progress, etc. That also makes it a rat race, where you continually need to go faster to keep up. As I am getting older I see that running is not the only game in town. And in most cases it detracts from happiness more then other methods in the long run (though it brings more wealth). Given also the finite resource problem and it is a good discussion to have if capitalism is the best and only economic system we should have on this planet. Like I said, for another time.

"The Libor and derivatives markets scandals, are not examples of free markets at all, they're abuses where the bad behavior was encouraged by policy"

What? What policy? The entire idea of over-the-counter (OTT, the largest amount by far) derivatives was that they are traded without any supervision or visibility. Complete free market! That and the inability to value and understand the risk per unit made for instance the Credit Default Swaps so dangerous. These were perfectly legal, and are still in most cases. The market is still unregulated today. You can argue that in the end it wasnt a free market because they got bailed out. Bullshit. They got bailed out because the other option was to let the entire economic system collapse. Letting the system collapse is not free markets, its stupid. The damage would have been catastrophic. The markets wouldnt repair that, they wouldnt exist anymore. That is why people call the derivatives market an example of a free market that should have been more regulated, because they had the power to destroy everything and the incentive to take the risk (for profit).
The way the bailout happened (and is still happening) is total and utter crap, but that is a different story all together.

Which leads again to the same question: if not the (IMHO obvious) derivatives market, name me an example of a free market?

Did you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.

That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!

It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.

Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.

As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.

That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.

>> ^bobknight33:

From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?

People also forget that it wasn't just people who work for GM and Chrysler whose jobs were saved. There's a whole supply chain to think about. Ohio's job market was helped out a lot by the auto bailout because we have a lot of companies who supply parts to GM and Chrysler here.

And of course those effects just keep rippling out, because people who kept their job at the parts supplier also spend their paycheck in the local economy. They buy houses here, eat in our restaurants, shop in our stores, etc.

People seem to have this notion that economic growth is all about profits, but really, it has more to do with making sure money keeps turning over in the economy. You want people to spend money on things, so people selling things have money to hire people to make more things, which gives those people money they can use to spend on things. You want money to flow in a circle, so everyone's kept employed making more stuff which over time makes us more prosperous.

Something like the liquidation of Chrysler or GM would've been a major disruption to that flow, right at a time when the financial crisis was creating a giant disruption of its own.

The bailouts prevented those disruptions, and the amount of money it saved us versus the alternative is much, much greater than the costs of lending the money to GM and Chrysler would be, even if we never got a dime back from either one.

>> ^bcglorf:

@NetRunner,
The difference is I stated that we don't have a high confidence in projections of temperature change due to increased CO2 when all other factors are taken into account.

The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role. The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role.

But again, that's not true. Look at the very paper I linked. Seriously.

My more general point is that what you're saying these papers say is different from what the people writing the papers say these papers say. IMO, that should make you think you missed something, rather than make you start implying that the scientists are misrepresenting their work.
>> ^bcglorf:

Translating that to what should we do means we don't have a good idea how much lowering CO2 emissions will help, what we do know is it will be expensive to do it on a large scale today.

Here's another thing I think you should reconsider. Let's say you're right, and we have no idea how much reducing CO2 will help. Maybe it'll help a little, maybe a whole lot.

I think we have a pretty good grasp on the "cost" of moving off CO2, but I think your economic analysis is faulty too. The "cost" is not some deadweight loss we'll never recoup. It's also not as if fossil fuels will last forever, so it's a matter of when we switch, not if.

So the matrix of possible actions and their consequences are:

1. We switch now, but the CO2 effect was small: It costs us a bit more, but we get a more sustainable energy system that creates less pollution, and stave off whatever damage CO2 would've had to the environment. Probably a net positive, but it's possible it could wind up being a slight net negative.
   
2. We switch now, and the CO2 effect was big: We save ourselves from a major catastrophe that would've wrecked our economy. Big net positive.
   
3. We make no attempt to switch early, but the CO2 effect was small: We save a little money from waiting, but we also do some damage to the environment, and our economy. Maybe it's a slight net positive, maybe it's still a net negative.
   
4. We make no attempt to switch early, and the CO2 effect was big: We save a little money from waiting, but the damage to the environment wrecks our economy. Big net negative.
   

So basically the choice boils down to whether we like options #1 and #2 better or worse than options #3 and #4. I like #1 and #2 better than #3 or #4 by a wide margin.

And that's without even factoring in the idea that a massive fiscal stimulus right now might actually help our economy out of its current depression. In that case, not only would the costs be small, they'd actually be a net positive to our long-run economic growth, without even factoring in the environmental damage prevented.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Actually more CO2 emissions come from big power plants than cars. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html#fossil CCS is about capturing the CO2 in the smoke stack of big energy plants, transporting it and pumping it underground for long-term geological storage. It's not really about planting and burying trees. Sorry for the spammage, but here's a good overview of it: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/ccs/what-is-ccs >> ^bcglorf:

>> ^dag:
How about carbon capture? Any thoughts on that? (my day job is here: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/)>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.


If I'm to be really blunt, carbon capture seems like a terrifically expensive make work project. With most of our carbon emissions coming from combustion engines and with companies like Tesla already coming very close to being competitive with purely electric alternatives I think our time, money and energy much better spent there. Creative carbon capture ideas like simple tree planting and other means of increasing plant capture has it's benefits, but the capture of CO2 is really low on the list. I'd say championing that sort of thing as carbon capture is just gimmicky when the most significant benefits are a multitude of other more direct things.

>> ^dag:

How about carbon capture? Any thoughts on that? (my day job is here: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/)>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.



If I'm to be really blunt, carbon capture seems like a terrifically expensive make work project. With most of our carbon emissions coming from combustion engines and with companies like Tesla already coming very close to being competitive with purely electric alternatives I think our time, money and energy much better spent there. Creative carbon capture ideas like simple tree planting and other means of increasing plant capture has it's benefits, but the capture of CO2 is really low on the list. I'd say championing that sort of thing as carbon capture is just gimmicky when the most significant benefits are a multitude of other more direct things.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

How about carbon capture? Any thoughts on that? (my day job is here: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/)>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.

You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:
You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...
That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!
I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.


Go back and read my arguments again, you claim that I "argue water vapour is the cause of current warming". I never said that. I talked about the percentage of our planet's greenhouse effect that is attributed to 2 gases, CO2 and H2O.

The greenhouse effect is not 'warming' it is not 'cooling', it is just the ability of various gases in the atmosphere to absorb energy and has been happening for millenia and barring absolute catastrophic disaster will continue to do so for millenia. Among the greenhouse gases climatologists estimate 70% of energy absorbed is done by H2O and 30% by CO2.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood even the most basic parts of what I've said. Go back and look closer, or if your not comfortable, get your chem prof to look and get him to explain it. My statements are in keeping with established science, most of it comes directly from articles like those in the links you yourself provided, like Mann et al's team(the hockey stick guys).

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.


You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:

You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...

That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!

I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.

>> ^Peroxide:

@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html


Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.

I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.

If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.

@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

@ghark, thanks for the links, I read all of them, very informative.

I'm sure you know that economics has more than one school of thought, which often times are very opposed to each other not only in theory, but also in their interpretations of important historical events like the Great Depression or even the Industrial Revolution. It seems straightforward that, given all historical evidence we have, there should be only one account of what went down in history, right? It's too bad that's not the case Historians are, themselves, often influenced by their own ideological bias. At least we both know it would be naïve to think all historians agree exactly on everything in history! Ask economists from different schools what happened during the Great Depression and they will invoke very opposite historic accounts.

A quick google search gave me an article stating almost the opposite of your 1st article (which is no surprise given its purpose to dismiss an alleged economic myth):
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm

That being said, I'd like to address your statement that "higher taxes is bad for our economy" being a rumor spread by the rich. I could just as well state the opposite is a rumor spread by those with a vested interest on taxing other people: the government and those who aren't being taxed. Wouldn't you agree that's more likely, given there are more people with that vested interest than rich people in the world? Also, wouldn't it be more likely that, maybe, a socialist ideology would be behind an effort to spread such a statement? I'm not questioning socialism, just saying, it's very likely a socialist would take a biased interpretation of economic growth and higher taxation and state that they're related in direct proportion (socialists usually want bigger governments that require higher taxes).

Economists say controversial things like "war is good/bad for the economy", "inflation is good/bad for the economy", "when you break a window, that helps/hinders the economy", so it's no wonder that something like "higher taxes is good/bad for the economy" falls into that category.

We cannot solve all economic fallacies here, I'm just trying to point out that we should be aware of the underlying economic schools of thought to better understand the ideological bias motivating their own sets of conclusions.

Chile's approach does not seem free market to me, even if it appears to be closer to that because of privatization. All education there seems to be state funded. When the state comes into a market providing easy money, costs go up, it's supply and demand. If every student has X amount of money provided by the state, private schools stop competing over price, so tuition costs go up (at least that's what I could gather, I'm sorry if I'm not exactly an expert on the Chile situation!)

About the uneven distribution, what I was stating is that not much moral judgement can be made on distribution itself, but on how this distribution is happening. If you have more money than me, I don't have enough information to judge whether that situation is unfair or whether you're undeserving of that money.

When I consider those who benefitted from TARP bailouts though, it pisses me off , because they got money from the taxpayer, money that they're not legitimately entitled to, they didn't have to work for, they didn't deserve. That particular kind of uneven distribution is scandalous IMHO, and it's the kind of injustice that more often results from misallocation of taxpayer money that is more likely to happen with higher taxation.