Everyone who has died has breathed/inhaled Carbon Dioxide at some time in their lives, therefore it is clearly dangerous/deadly!

That's applying the same kind of science as the global warmers, right?

Careful DJ, or you'll ruin the efforts of the Goracle and his cohorts to make billions of dollars for themselves in trading 'carbon offsets'.

Think how third-world despots like Robert Mugabe can destroy Zimbabwe's agriculture and overall economy, yet get more billions to steal from his people by selling his 'carbon offsets' to gullible buyers. This, thanks to the Goreacle who has created a commodity literally out of thin air.

Very well put.

You've really hit the nail on the head. This is about grabbing power and money, nothing more.

I think Al Gore has done more to harm the cause of true environmentalism than anyone in a long time by lying in the name of his Global Warmist cause.

You don't win by lying.

The truth stands on its own.

Which is pretty much what you said.

But DJ, if they weren't allowed to threaten or bully you, they'd never get your attention -- and this is an emergency! CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???

[/sarcasm off]

DJ, I think this is one of my favorite postings from you... and Amen!

How about all that carbon produced by AL GORE as he and those idiots from GREENPEST(GREENPEACE)AS THEY TRAVEL ALL OVER LYING ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING AND ESPECIALY GREENPEACE AND THE GOOFY SHIP WITH THOSE SILLY SAILS ON IT

There is no science in global warming, it's all a bunch of untested, who knows what, computer models. Here is my suggestion, set the initial conditions to 1980 and run the models until 2007 data comes out. Then compare the model predictions to the real world that has been.

Another test is find the CO2 global warming signature in the atmosphere. Problem with that is many have tried and it's just not there as the computer models predict it would be.

And then there is this little problem with the quality of the data that is used, the USHCN stations are a case study in what not to do.

There is no reason this whole debate cannot be open and verified, unless of course there is a reason .. Having a biased party conduct the science is disastrous and that is just what the UN IPCC is biased ... who gets the taxes?

It's really bad when you can't even trust a thermometer. If they have bad data, they will have bad results. The guy running this website is trying to locate every weather station in the country to compile accurate data
http://www.surfacestations.org/

DJ, were to begin?

First, the Bush administration is the bullies. It has been well documented that they have bullied, pressured and revised documentation on and by government scientists. Here is just one example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

To discard climate models because annual hurricane predictions are not accurate is just faulty logic on your part. The methodology between the two are different and not comparable.

If you think that pollution has been removed from the environment you're just not paying attention, and the Bush administration has done all they can to rollback laws that have protected us:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EEDA1E31F935A2575AC0A9639C8B63

Several states have filed suit and won against the Bush administration on environmental issues.

Carbon levels affect us in other ways. Carbon levels in the sea are rising which caused the acidity level to increase. This is a major cause of reef destruction and will lead to less productive oceans, and less sea live we can harvest.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/04/oceans.acid/index.html

The bottom-line is if we take positive action on global warming and we are wrong we have a cleaner world and we are the leaders of an emerging alternative energy industry. If we are wrong we will have to deal with serious problems such as loss of coastal areas, loss of plants and species and loss of agricultural land.

BarneyG2000:

I won't comment on your mentioning "bullies" but you do quote the NYT. 'Nuff said.

Positive action on global warming is OK as long as it makes economic sense. The Kyoto-style proposals will shut down the world economy and will not have a material affect on the climate. It would also entail handing the keys of the economy entirely over to the government, creating a great opportunities for liars like Al Gore to make a lot of money.

Clavious, pull your head out of Limbaugh's ass for a second and do some research. We can move forward with or without Kyoto. Since when does incentivizing new technology mean handing over the economy to the Feds? If that is the case we should eliminate all grants and tax breaks to corporations such a the oil and mining industry.

Well done DJ. It appears once again it's more about the power and prestige than the environment.

Barney go suck an egg.

"There is no reason this whole debate cannot be open and verified, unless of course there is a reason .. "

TB bill, what do you mean no debate? There has been nothing but debate since the first Bush administration.

"Brn g sck n gg."

nt sr bt thnk sckd n gg t f r wf's vgnl lst nght.
you're out of line buddy

Barney, for once be a leader.
Quit exhaling.

The Greens can't debate these issues because they would have to actually show the data behind their opinions. There is little or no data to support their ideas, they want to shut down the economy and this is the latest justification to do so.
This is just a big con by socialist in Green sheeps clothing.
The IPPC got caught using fabricated data (the Hockey Stick chart) for gosh sake. That was outright fraud and yet they are supposed to be credible now ? Please ...

Simple question for the Greens ...

Since 1998 which year was warmer than 1998 ?

I'm going to start with admitting that I don't think global warming is a major issue. Any influence people have on the environment is swamped by the natural influences.

That said, I would like you to consider these data points.

Net emissions (sources and sinks)

1990 5573.2

1995 5875.6

2000 6523.6

2001 6348.0

2002 6312.7

2003 6316.0

2005 6384.4

2006 6318.9

I can't import the chart, but look at ES-15 on page 27 of 28.

It shows that we have a constantly increasing GDP, a constantly increasing population and a constantly decreasing greenhouse emissions per $GDP.

It also shows that green house gases per capita have been consistently lower under Bush than under Clinton. Even though population is increasing, less greenhouse gasses per person. You only get that with less green house gasses period when your population is growing.

Now the media bias question is why has this not been widely announced? Why is there no acknowledgement that under Bush we are seeing a growing economy producing more with less greenhouse gas emissions (per $GDP and per capita)? Why don't we hear that under Bush we are consistently seeing lower net emissions than when Clinton left office?

This is an example of the dog not barking. "Good news" is kept under wraps. If Gore had been elected in 2000, do you think that this would not have been front page news?

Think about the filter through which you are getting your news from when the press has a left leaning bias.

Barney,

[quote]Clavious, pull your head out of Limbaugh's ass for a second and do some research. We can move forward with or without Kyoto. Since when does incentivizing new technology mean handing over the economy to the Feds? If that is the case we should eliminate all grants and tax breaks to corporations such a the oil and mining industry.[/quote]

I'll ignore the ad hom.

Given what you say about "going without Kyoto" I'd agree. There is nothing wrong with incenting new technology. In fact, there are some very cool coal gassification technologies that can capture all unwanted gasses. We should push tons of money that way.

But things like carbon credits aren't the right idea. Nor is draconian regulation. That's what I have a problem with and that's what the fear-mongering seems to be pointed toward.

Once again, Barney comments where he does not understand the fundamental issues.

The basic "research" that claimed that recent warming was unprecedented has been essentially destroyed. There are serious questions about the causality of greenhouse gases like CO2 and warming - this because there are studies which suggest that warming precedes CO2 levels by centuries in geological history.

We need to get the science to meet a higher standard of reliability before creating the enormous economic upheavals that Barney blindly and ignorantly misrepresents as being just "cleaning" up the world.

Beyond that, anyone who is advocating "doing somethign" about global warming that does not include massive building programs for nuclear power is just a kook.

The "global warming" cultists are just a bunch of simpletons.

SPQR:

[QUOTE]Beyond that, anyone who is advocating "doing somethign" about global warming that does not include massive building programs for nuclear power is just a kook.[/QUOTE]

Right on! Proven technology, no possible greenhouse gas (whether or not that really matters).

Michael,

I prefer the term (from Taranto)"Global Warmist."

"I have to say, at the start of this piece, that I am extremely skeptical of the claims made by those who so warn us of 'Global Warming'." -- DJ Drummond

This from someone who believes that a couple thousand years ago a half-man, half-god creature would cursed fig trees for the hell of it.

"If the air turns funny colors and gets hard to breathe, it's even more an obvious problem." -- DJ Drummond

Not to SUV-loving conservatives, who love to belch filth into the air that I breathe. Nor to George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas didn't give a damn about how dirty Houston's air was.

"It also shows that green house gases per capita have been consistently lower under Bush than under Clinton." -- yetanotherjohn

Increasing price of oil had nothing to do with this, right, dude? Nor did the fact that Republicans in Congress during Clinton's presidency refused to pass legislation demanding increased fuel efficiency for cars have any bearing?

Hey Barney,

Carbon increases in the ocean cannot make it more acidic as Carbon is a Base that neutralizes acids. Perhaps you've never heard of the periodic table or Tums or any other antacid.

Might I suggest stopping your ignorant posts and go study the periodic table...

This from someone who believes that a couple thousand years ago a half-man, half-god creature would cursed fig trees for the hell of it.

If you're alluding to Jesus with your bashing,
what exactly does that have to do with the
topic of this thread? An excuse for you to
bash Christ, or his followers? Does that give
you a rush?

Okay, I'll bite and play the warmenista. Carbon dioxide is a gray gas that allows most solar irradiance to pass through, yet absorbs a selected portion of the thermal radiation from the earth's surface. It is a 'greenhouse gas'. There seems to be sufficient data to say that of the recent warming (as indicated by several different governmental agency's records) about half (0.25-0.3C) is due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Further increases in CO2 will increase the temperature more.

So what? I don't care and neither should you. The present warming is not unprecedented. Using even the GISS temperature reconstruction, present warming is approximately equivalent (so far) to the warming experienced in the 1930s, at least in North America. Temperatures were most likely even warmer worldwide during the medieval warm period (wine grapes in England, Trees in Greenland Fjords). There was no widespread famine and displacement of persons. There is no reason to believe this will happen if we get a degree or so warmer.

The catastrophic conditions predicted are based upon assumed positive feedbacks introduced in computer models. There is no evidence in past warmings that these feedbacks caused runaway conditions. There is no evidence to indicate they will in the future. It's speculation. Our ecosystem, it seems to me, is heavily buffered about it existing state at least as far as increasing temperatures are concerned.

I think it's great if you can live your life and try to minimize your impact on the world around you. You are a good steward and citizen. It makes good practical sense. But convoluting your life to conform to some doomsday scenario is foolish.

We've had these debates many times on Wizbang and the same people post the same links to support their position, but I doubt anyone has changed their opinion, if they had one to start. Regardless of the facts, the global warming proponents have the political advantage. I've also noticed that many companies, even oil companies, have figured out ways to spin global warming into money making scams. That should scare the crap out of every environmentalist who's not so deluded as to think big business has "seen the light". Just as the environmentalists hijacked climate science, big business is now hijacking environmentalism.

"Hey Barney,

Carbon increases in the ocean cannot make it more acidic as Carbon is a Base that neutralizes acids. Perhaps you've never heard of the periodic table or Tums or any other antacid.

Might I suggest stopping your ignorant posts and go study the periodic table...

24. Posted by Aaron"

Aaron, maybe you have not heard about chemical reactions, nor have you heard about carbonic acid. That is a "carbon" based acid.

"Most of the carbon in seawater is in the form of HCO3-, while the concentrations of CO3-2- and dissolved CO2 are one and two orders of magnitude lower, respectively. The equilibrium reaction for CO2 chemistry in seawater that most cogently captures its behavior is

CO2 + CO32- + H2O == 2 HCO3-"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169

Just a quick and inconvenient fact for Herman. Governor Bush cared about pollution in Texas, but there was a problem with the EPA's clean air data for Houston. Every year, farmers in Mexico burn off their brush and a lot of trash, and a lot of Mexican plants do the same thing, because the Mexican government does not do anything about it. That sooty cloud of pollution, several hundred miles wide, is carried north and crosses Houston. The EPA counts that as Houston's pollution, even though H-town cannot do a thing about it. Governor Bush asked the EPZ to take the Mexican source into consideration, and when the EPA said no, Bush decided the EPA was not worth his time.

As usual, you and the facts are far apart and moving away from each other.

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

link h/t www.QandO.net

What's the matter Aaron? You don't got the balls to apologize for insulting me? I guess you ran away in shame.

Herman-

"Not to SUV-loving conservatives, who love to belch filth into the air that I breathe. Nor to George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas didn't give a damn about how dirty Houston's air was."

Predictably off-topic, inane, and uncreative. The Global Warming hype, by the way, has nothing to do with dirty air. It is all about the money, which is the hidden demand behind all this crap. It's about collective mind control with the use of an elusive cause.

With Herman, LaMedusa, its all about justifications - no matter how irrelevant - for his hate. That's all there is to Herman.

Amusingly, no one has told Herman that in fact greater air pollution in the form of aerosols would be a negative forcing for warming - in other words, that more real air pollution would actually reduce warming.

JPM100

link h/t www.QandO.net

Great link, thanks for the comment. I don't read Q&O too often.

And the point is great -- this is about science. In science, we learn things, and hence change our minds based on the influence of facts.

So back to DJ's original great post, if they didn't have an agenda, they wouldn't try to stop debate on it.

Barney is a real horse's arse, isn't he? Insulting people and then demanding they apologize. That is what fat losers do when they can not present evidence to the point of the post.

There is no evidence that sh