OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While?

[lookingagain]

Ash Housewares,

The big problem with the site you linked to, if you read the authors “rebuttals” (or at least the ones I looked at) they all basically say “the skeptics have cherry-picked the data to support their claims.” Then he goes on to cherry-pick data to discredit the skeptics!

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[SD Realtor]

afx I am not saying china and india are not aware of it, nor am I denying that global warming exists because it does.

If we want to implement a comprehensive GLOBAL policy then I am all for it. Saying that if the USA takes the lead then all will follow is not good enough for me. We have taken the lead in democracy and freedom of religion and certainly all have not followed, nor will they ever do that.

Human nature doesn’t work that way.

I don’t have a solution for global warming but I think the solution needs to be a global solution. Our president said he a global citizen right?

Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?

Is that to much to ask?

It doesn’t make me feel any better that Pelosi has an ownership stake in CLNE either.

[SD Realtor]

afx I am not saying china and india are not aware of it, nor am I denying that global warming exists because it does.

If we want to implement a comprehensive GLOBAL policy then I am all for it. Saying that if the USA takes the lead then all will follow is not good enough for me. We have taken the lead in democracy and freedom of religion and certainly all have not followed, nor will they ever do that.

Human nature doesn’t work that way.

I don’t have a solution for global warming but I think the solution needs to be a global solution. Our president said he a global citizen right?

Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?

Is that to much to ask?

It doesn’t make me feel any better that Pelosi has an ownership stake in CLNE either.

[SD Realtor]

afx I am not saying china and india are not aware of it, nor am I denying that global warming exists because it does.

If we want to implement a comprehensive GLOBAL policy then I am all for it. Saying that if the USA takes the lead then all will follow is not good enough for me. We have taken the lead in democracy and freedom of religion and certainly all have not followed, nor will they ever do that.

Human nature doesn’t work that way.

I don’t have a solution for global warming but I think the solution needs to be a global solution. Our president said he a global citizen right?

Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?

Is that to much to ask?

It doesn’t make me feel any better that Pelosi has an ownership stake in CLNE either.

[SD Realtor]

afx I am not saying china and india are not aware of it, nor am I denying that global warming exists because it does.

If we want to implement a comprehensive GLOBAL policy then I am all for it. Saying that if the USA takes the lead then all will follow is not good enough for me. We have taken the lead in democracy and freedom of religion and certainly all have not followed, nor will they ever do that.

Human nature doesn’t work that way.

I don’t have a solution for global warming but I think the solution needs to be a global solution. Our president said he a global citizen right?

Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?

Is that to much to ask?

It doesn’t make me feel any better that Pelosi has an ownership stake in CLNE either.

[SD Realtor]

afx I am not saying china and india are not aware of it, nor am I denying that global warming exists because it does.

If we want to implement a comprehensive GLOBAL policy then I am all for it. Saying that if the USA takes the lead then all will follow is not good enough for me. We have taken the lead in democracy and freedom of religion and certainly all have not followed, nor will they ever do that.

Human nature doesn’t work that way.

I don’t have a solution for global warming but I think the solution needs to be a global solution. Our president said he a global citizen right?

Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?

Is that to much to ask?

It doesn’t make me feel any better that Pelosi has an ownership stake in CLNE either.

[DWCAP]

[quote=felix]
CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath[/quote]

This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants ‘respire’ in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

[quote=felix]There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now[/quote]

Actually, not true.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)

[quote=felix]Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade[/quote]

Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp’s fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.

“Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf

[quote=felix]So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?[/quote]

All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.

And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?

[quote=felix] Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.[/quote]

National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.

[quote=felix]Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.[/quote]

Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.

“Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear’s range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit’s voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest.”
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/article/279817

Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.

[quote=felix]So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.

As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see “the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down”? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.

[DWCAP]

[quote=felix]
CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath[/quote]

This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants ‘respire’ in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

[quote=felix]There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now[/quote]

Actually, not true.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)

[quote=felix]Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade[/quote]

Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp’s fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.

“Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf

[quote=felix]So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?[/quote]

All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.

And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?

[quote=felix] Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.[/quote]

National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.

[quote=felix]Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.[/quote]

Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.

“Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear’s range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit’s voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest.”
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/article/279817

Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.

[quote=felix]So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.

As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see “the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down”? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.

[DWCAP]

[quote=felix]
CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath[/quote]

This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants ‘respire’ in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

[quote=felix]There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now[/quote]

Actually, not true.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)

[quote=felix]Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade[/quote]

Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp’s fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.

“Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf

[quote=felix]So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?[/quote]

All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.

And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?

[quote=felix] Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.[/quote]

National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.

[quote=felix]Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.[/quote]

Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.

“Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear’s range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit’s voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest.”
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/article/279817

Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.

[quote=felix]So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.

As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see “the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down”? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.

[DWCAP]

[quote=felix]
CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath[/quote]

This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants ‘respire’ in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

[quote=felix]There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now[/quote]

Actually, not true.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)

[quote=felix]Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade[/quote]

Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp’s fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.

“Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf

[quote=felix]So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?[/quote]

All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.

And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?

[quote=felix] Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.[/quote]

National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.

[quote=felix]Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.[/quote]

Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.

“Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear’s range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit’s voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest.”
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/article/279817

Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.

[quote=felix]So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.

As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see “the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down”? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.

[Author]

Posts