"The United States has said it will make its emissions cuts binding under an international agreement only if China and other developing countries that are big polluters back their commitments with equal legal force."

Indeed. Unless the largest Carbon emitter (China) gets on board, nothing the other nations do will have a meaningful effect. Why should China get a free pass which allows them to use cheap dirty coal while other countries are forced to use much more expensive sources. They already have the advantage of cheap labor and financing and stolen technology.

Waiting is going to be a disaster for us," said Samuela Alivereti Saumatua, Fiji's environment minister, who said the Pacific island this month relocated its first coastal village because of climate-related flooding and unseasonable cyclones

And here in the US we listen to "Presidential hopefuls" assuring us that global climate is a "hoax"; and that we should just trust that God will fix all our problems. We call people to a stadium to "pray" for rain and other similar asinine actions.

An ostrich would be embarrassed to be represented by these people.

Interesting to see a picture where people are yawning in the back.

Why should China get a free pass

And that sums up why we won't fix this in time.

Very few people understand just how bad this is going to be. I assure you that whatever you 'save' in lower energy costs and competitive advantage now will not comfort your children and grandchildren when they face the disaster we are imposing on them with our greed.

@Irespond

I believe in God, and I believe he will fix the world's problems, just not in the way that the Republican party thinks he will. Why is the world in this situation to begin with? we really do not understand how the earth's complex ecosystems work and therefore do not understand the impact of our decisions on the earth. Therefore, since we live in such ignorance, we are destroying the earth and killing ourselves.

So now, what if God came tomorrow, unzipped the sky, and said, "Hello everybody. I'm God. I created you and the earth. I can show you the best way to live to get the most peace and enjoyment out of life. I can show you how to live in harmony with the earth. I can show you how to have good health. I can heal your sicknesses. I can even give you eternal life. Here is all I ask - you must be obedient to my commands. You must live the way I ask you to live and do as I ask you to do. However, I am your creator, I love you, and want only what is best for you."

So, how many people would take God up on that offer? No doubt some would. However, couldn't you imagine that many would say, "Yeah...ummmm, thanks for the offer and all, but I like how I am living right now. I don't want someone telling me how to live. I like free and independent to make my own decisions. You created me and all, and I appreciate that, but I think I would be OK on my own."

So, what would God do? If he killed off the people who said that they could do a better job on their own, it wouldn't prove anything would it? It might even make people think that they were right and God was trying to cover up the truth. So, he could simply let some time pass and let everyone see for themselves how it works out for the people who are on their own, separate from their creator.

Well, this isn't just a hypothetical scenario, but actually what happened at the beginning of human history. Mankind at one time had a relationship with their creator, but they rebelled, saying they could do better on their own. The incidents of the Garden of Eden were about much more than a piece of fruit - it was Adam and Eve exercising their free will and rejecting their creator's rule. So, God essentially said, "OK, you want your freedom, youv'e got it. But be careful what you ask for...I'll be around, watching and waiting." Waiting for what? For us to make fools of ourselves, that we have.

Throughout history, when bad things have happened, people have always asked, "Well, where was God on that one?" He was watching and waiting. Every bad thing that has happened in human history has been a result of our own evil and incompetence and only makes the case that we are incapable as humans of ruling the earth on our own. Global warming is the latest example of this - this along with the threat of nuclear war, depleting fresh water supplies, overpopulation, diminishing petroleum supplies, starvation of over a billion people, disease, etc. Its not God's fault. Its ours.

So, is there any question left that mankind's rule is a failure? Hasn't it beed demonstrated that we cannot do it on our own? Now what?

Daniel 2:44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

Revelation 11:18 "The nations were angry,
and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your people who revere your name,
both great and small—
and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”

Then what?

Revelation 21:4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’^[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

So, with the experiment in independence behind us, we can finally get on with the real life, the one God intended for his creation.

That's my view on the whole thing. Flame if you wish, but I have not been inclined to change my core beliefs because some random person with a name like JOHN-SMITH543678787 flamed me a little on MSNBC.COM.

@ Will:

I respect your religion. However, 70 billion people in the planet have 70 billion different perspectives of what "GOD" is; while 70 billion people put a lot of stress in our planet.

We all should understand that the earth is our only home, and stop expecting to fix our problems with wishful thinking. God exist in the minds of the living, and we can use our minds to fix our planet in the name of everybody's God.

Thanks for the long answer.

Now, now, now... I agree with Roy on this one. There is no other country on earth that can, or will, force China's hand on pollution, so, whether we like it or not, it falls on us to get them in the fold. And, if we've learned NOTHING else in the last 3 years from the Republicans, truly not giving a sh!t about others or even your own well being in "negotiations" works VERY well. I put the quotes around "negotiations", because anyone with that kind of self destructive and almost religious determination changes "negotiations" to more like "hostage taking"... not unlike terrorist "negotiating" tactics... kind of a suicide bomb attitude... "Do what I say or we ALL go down!"

I guess what I'm most surprised with is that the GOP is even discussing allowing us to enter into such a binding agreement, given that they "know" global warming is one giant hoax... or is it just that they know China will never enter an agreement? Very confusing.

IRESPOND - Our climate is always changing and you can never win an argument either way as to whether humans are responsible. The important thing for the health of our planet is to reduce AIR POLUTION. The world should focus on this goal and also take actions to address the problems caused by climate change without playing the blame game. We are all responsible for air polution and we can all work to reduce it.

More chicken little douechbaggery.

When will this farce end?

Seriously folks the ebb and flow of glacial activity is well documented and carbon dioxide is not the source of our current faux plague upon melting glaciers.

Stop hacking and burning down the rain forests everyone start planting trees and bushes just like the Johnny Appleseed of old!

Carbon credit tax schemes will not fix the issues.

Destroying the ability of nations to power themselves and create goodsa dn feed themselves is not going to fix this.

Third world nations breeding like roaches eating,slashing, killing, polluting and burning every living thing is the biggest problem.

Plant more trees!

Irespond...

And here in the US we listen to "Presidential hopefuls" assuring us that global climate is a "hoax"; and that we should just trust that God will fix all our problem

Newt and Romney both agree with the libs on this issue. I'm not sure who the hell you are talking about.

And another thing...Lennon was a closet conservative.

Will-1091847

I believe in God, and I believe he will fix the world's problems, just not in the way that the Republican party thinks he will.

And not the way you do, either. Can you take it for a fact that God has never made a physical presence on this earth? And that He has never "directly" solved our problems, but solved them by giving knowledge, capabilities, and inspiration to people, who, in His name and otherwise, have helped solve our problems?

So maybe this is just a lesson... a test. Maybe it's a comparative minor adjustment we need to do to get earth and our lives back on track. And maybe He gave us scientists with the right knowledge and cooperative politicians at this important moment (this IS the most peaceful time in history, or close to it), and global leadership that can pull this all together... maybe He is waiting for US to fix this... we fix it, great!, we don't... well... we fail the "test" and... you know.

If the US cared about the environment they would be giving the Pirus away at your local dealer, China doesn't give a squat about environment, two of biggest polluters in the world are sitting on the back burner.

benr

Seriously folks the ebb and flow of glacial activity is well documented and carbon dioxide is not the source of our current faux plague upon melting glaciers.

And you know this, how? And you chose to risk it all if you're wrong, why? And a global even-playing-field pact to reduce pollution is a bad idea, why? Please provide your sources... and don't give us your uncle's phone number.

Kornfed,

Newt and Romney MAY agree there is global warming. They MAY agree that mankind is causing it. They MAY agree with recent science that shows the problem escalating. And I guess they MAY agree with some of the strategies to combat the problem... but IF they do, they're being awfully quiet about it.

One thing is certain, they wouldn't be the one's I would pick to lead us and drive any kind of real solution to the problem. Agreed?

As has been mentioned, China and other developing nations will most likely continue emitting a lot of carbon, regardless of what other nations do. Even if all carbon emitting sources stopped today, the earth would continue to warm. We will need to look to sequester atmospheric carbon and cool the earth through geoengineering.

I'm sure they've enjoyed their vacation there. Considering the whole thing is just a ruse to exercise power and control, I'd say that the failure to reach an agreement is hardly a disaster. The fact is that there is no way any treaty of this kind will ever be ratified by Congress. The current administration is doing a mighty fine job of destroying our economy without it. Of course, he'd love to have this to speed up the process. The fact is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that this kind of a treaty will make a dent in whatever perceived problem that is supposedly being addressed. Heck, there's no evidence that the problem being addressed is even a problem. For those that want to scream that we HAVE to do something, I would suggest that you jump up and down on your left foot for 20 minutes. There, isn't that better? You've done something!

The majority of people in the US now realize that all this climate stuff (heck, it's gone by so many names: global cooling, global warming, climate change, etc.) is nothing more than the Socialists newest gimmick to try to convince people to give up their rights in favor of Big Brother. Thank the Gods for that!

One thing is certain, they wouldn't be the one's I would pick to lead us and drive any kind of real solution to the problem. Agreed?

What makes you think that we can fix the problem? Either we thin the heard, or come up with a VIABLE energy alternative that the world will use. Other than collapsing the world's economy, what do you bloviating idiots intend to do about it?

Roy pretty much sums it up, if China is allowed to duck all this, the efforts of the rest of the world have far less impact.

Also, IRespond, there are 7 billion pople on Earth, not 70 billion.

These trillion dollar numbers thrown around by the government seem to be making people think these large numbers are common. When you hear 1 trillion people should try to enter that into a calculator...maybe then people would realise how out of control government spending is.

A group of 48 of the least developed countries has said it backs the European plan

Is it any surprise that the countries who will get money to "fight global warming" are in favor of the plan?

So let me get this straight, we need to give money we don't have to help fund other countries "fight global warming" while putting excess burdens on our already struggling and dying economy and industries, but competing nations like China and Brazil will not live up to the same standards we do giving them yet another edge in the attracting business game? WOW! WHERE DO I SIGN?

LMarcT....BTW, I love dogs, and animals in general. Maybe PETA can bring us together haha

Great Post other Will.

With this fearmongering crowd, running out of coffee would be described as a disaster. And from the picture, that might have happened. Climate change will not destroy the earth. It may collapse some cultures that wont adapt like the french didnt during the medieval warming period but other cultures WILL adapt once they see how their local environment is ACTUALLY affected and life will go on.

Had it not been for excessive greed, the allowance of the exploitation of China's 3rd world wages wouldn't have been, since in most every other way, we've disagreed with their philosophies on government. Now, all at the top, both Red and Blue, are heavily invested in big $$ endeavors that require 3rd world exploitation and neither will really do much about the loss of America's economy nor about China's pollution other than occasional rhetoric. Other developed nations similarly.

The few that ARE still vested in America to some degree and even moderates that are invested abroad see the real problem in acting NOT in concert with China, as this would be the final nail in the American (and elsewhere's) economic coffin for the average citizen. Requiring all top dogs to agree and sign onto the same game plan pertaining to emissions in general but mostly manufacturing is moreso financial than anything else.

China has enjoyed great economic gains while others losses (save for the few top % worldwide invested) for several decades now; they are in a better position than ever. China can bide time, agree to whatever, and then back right out of it all, call in debts, go back to being more or less isolationist...... and even the threat of such would panic the afore mentioned, they'd cowtow in the end anyways. Exploiting cheap, 3rd world wages to the benefit of the few, those that have tossed American Capitalism in the crapper in trade for exhorbitent wealth have made China, intentionally or otherwise, powerfull on all levels. The few includes other nations as well, hence the 'global economy' and their economic demises as well.

Whether some believe in global warming being man made and others not so much so is not the major point here; greener technologies could have and should have been worked on while using what's available and each nation containing trade to the tune of their own best interests some time ago. Now, many are wanting to curb them without the viable substitute being in place or even close to being a working technology substitute (why work on greener technologies when the idea was to do away with manufacturing in the US?) during a time when global recession is still hovering and China can back out of any deal, any time it wants and the result will be global depression.

To the depths the greedy were allowed to do so, the global economy has always been a farce benefitting such a very few and certainly not any nation's citizenry. Global warming campaigns in America have also been a farce, as polluting in China still pollutes globally, so it never made sense to sell our backbone, our middle class, our economy overseas in the name of global warming. It couldn't be defended in the name of global warming.

Perhaps now, some have finally realized they've gone too far, too many remain homeless, jobless, to garner taxes coming in from citzenry hence no way to continue supporting them without viable jobs coming home without continually printing funny money and taking on more debt, foreign and domestic.... impending implosions. Perhaps they've quelled their greed some, and are finally willing to give some ecnomy back to Americans, and pressuring China to be equal on the emissions playing field will slowly reverse the trend orchestrated years ago.

So, if you don't stop, we won't stop. nana nana boo boo!

We should stop unilaterally because it's the right thing to do. Want to force China to stop? Do something that impacts their trade. It's all about the bottom line.

As long the agenda be politicize to the redistribution of wealth agenda, nothing is going to come out . They must also move from the man made global warming to an environmental protection agenda to protect our environment from polluters that contaminate the air water and soil.

Climate change is ongoing, it's been forever (for Earth, billions of years). They've found frozen, some fossilized some actually in ice, fauna in glaciers. Earthquakes, especially those in deep trenches in oceans, alter the major currents that control so much of our 'normal' weather. Looking at what we know of Earth's history, the current climate adjustment is little more than a small belch. And, the time frame involved... much is specualtion as to what is really changing in the big picture. Continents drifted, volcanic activity had been so violent as to change Earth's entire climate and geography, earthquakes so powerfull.... folks get the picture here.

Man contributes, as has every other animal priveledged to live on Earth over Her existence. Human animals are multiplying at an unsustainable rate; more of us, less resources, less land to farm and feed the exponential numbers, less for all other animals, the seas being depleted.... the list goes on. There's naught we can do to stop our ultimate ending, and we may find that it comes much sooner for us animals than any other in history, save for a massive war or natural catastrophe that culls 1/3 or so of the populace at some time prior.

Trapped ferns and other carbon based, once tropical, life forms found in glaciers way up north is enough for me to believe that Earth has skewed radically more than once, and no reason to believe it won't happen again. Her wobble, such as a top.... ever seen the occasional extreme tipping a normally even spinning top does, then returning to even again? Spread that out over billions of years at thousands of MPH, and there are scientists that see this as possible climate changes over regions.... some mild, some not so.

To say man doesn't contribute is as ridiculous as saying that natural climate change doesn't happen. The arguement is over mans contribution percentage.

@lmarct

Know what that glaciers once covered most of North America?

Are you kidding?

Or basic common sense science about carbon dioxide a life gas required for plants and trees to survive and thrive?

As part of the carbon cycle known as photosynthesis, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria absorb carbon dioxide, light, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product.^[1] But in darkness photosynthesis cannot occur, and during the resultant respiration small amounts of carbon dioxide are produced.^[2] Carbon dioxide also is a by-product of combustion; is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers; and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution.

It would make sense if the control freaks would push an agenda of planting trees forcing people to reestablish rainforests and areas that man has destroyed to use as fuel for cooking and heating.

Since this is about greed power and control instead the global elite push taxes that will control and destroy industry instead of creating industries to reforest denuded areas.

It's common sense which as people get brainwashed by leftist mantras of it's all mans fault technoligy is bad seems to become very uncommon.

Kornfed, Got a good laugh from your two opposing comments (bloviating(?) idiot to loving dogs)... thanks.

BTW, looking at my dogs face, how could you possibly deny him a pollution-free world? Are we together now?

benr,

So you really think that the argument is against all the natural processes you mention? It's not. In fact the science acknowledges all the natural processes and the cyclic nature of the earth's climate. But after all that acknowledgement, the science says we're screwing with the cycle in a way that we can't control and a way that seems to have an endless feedback cycle to it... it's the trends and the correlation to carbon output that is the concern, NOT the raw numbers. It's the magnitude... the rate of change... that is unprecedented, not the fact that it IS changing.

The bottom line is that we can argue all day about it, but the debate will go nowhere as long as you're convinced it's somehow a left-wing conspiracy and I'm convinced the right is blocking anything that could threaten their money. You ARE and I am... so have a great day!

Kornfed likes my dog, doesn't that sway you in the least?

Some, if not many of us, have been SCREAMING at legislature to do something about trade with China; it's completely unfair balance, the sellout of America's economy, the completely unfair 'free trade agreements'. Both sides of the Hill have been systemically selling out America for decades now, most all have known this and have been reacting to the extent of banging one's head against a wall in futility.

So yeah... nana nana; much deeper than that, you may have taken some too simplistically perhaps, or thought this was something new. I've been following for the same decades it's taken to get us where we are, and fought it as best one can. I can hear some I worked with in the 90's now; 'damn.... I thought he was smoking too much green, but sh!t.......'. It's all about the money, but advertised soooo differently.... and some buy it.

God will not fix this. Praying real hard, or ignoring the issue will not make it go away. If you wish, God made nature and nature sequestered a billion years or more of carbon in the form of hydrocarbons under the earth. We came along a few hundred years ago and dug this stuff up to extract its stored energy. Sooner or later this bonanza which supports 6 billion people will diminish, become vanishingly small and we will be forced to obtain our energy requirements from the wind, water, sun. The longer we delay in making these policy changes, the greater the impact of what should be called "Carbon Dioxide Induced Global Climate Change." And yes, reforestation seems like a good idea all around.

I agree with the delegate from San Marino in the photo.

*YAWN*

The disaster will be if these autocratic , climate alarmists get control of our lives and our purse. Their scheme, a familar one throughout history , is to take from those that earned and give to those that didn't. The acquisition of power to limit freedom is their aspiration. May their efforts languish and wither away.

I'm of the belief that we have no chance, no chance, to curtail this before we start to free fall into full-blown climate change. The powers that be have no interest in it. Look at the past 15, 20 years as an example. Stall, stall, stall.....

The one slim hope that we have is that over the next 5-10 years someone invents some exotic new technology that can replace gasoline. Still, there are many scientists that say even if we stopped burning 100% of fossil fuels today, we still may not be able to stop this process.

And @ Gary 309.

You're a pathetic fool.

Roy, I quite agree with you, in principle...

However, even if China decides to be a "bad player" . . still insisting that, despite the being the second largest economy in the world, that it is a "poor" nation who can't afford to clean up, etc., even if they continue, does that excuse the US or other nations?

"Well, if Billy doesn't behave then I'm not gonna behave, either!"

Now, don't get me wrong, if the rest of the world decides to comply, and China decides to take the attitude "Screw the rest of you, our needs come first and foremost" then the rest of the world is equally obliged to, with the same unanimity, penalize China. Embargo, boot them out of the WTO, etc., and essentially nullify and make it a burden, rather than a benefit, to say "I'm not playing by your rules"

I agree 100% that there is unsustainable global warming, I agree it is mostly humans fault. However, both sides need to sit down and take care of this issue as a much broader issue. We should stop coming to the table to demanding a change to try to stop global warming. This should be an air quality issue. This is not chicken little, we are dumping things with no regard to what will happen, we are not caring, and this is a first step on our way to cleaning up the air we breathe.

We should stop putting crap in the air, we can put some up but in general we need to stop having bad air quality days and an eventual goal of wearing respirators wherever we go. China needs to 100% be behind this as well, they may be in a stage that we once were in, when we were in that stage we dumped LARGE amounts of this crap in the air, but they lost in this regard, bad timing, too bad so sad. They need to be in this. That doesn't mean we stop our curbing too, just because someone else doesn't come to the table, but we need them there.

If this is a natural cycle (most likely it isn't because its on a far faster scale than ever before) then should we be helping it along? If eventually this world becomes inhospitable anyway should we cut our time short by generations? This world has had many major extinction rates (some which look like this just on a slower scale), should we really tempt fate by almost pushing another one? Our economy may be weak, but its not dead, and if the world doesn't exist, the economy doesn't. Even if we are only 1% of the problem, then should we be 1% of the problem?

This seems like when the original settlers came to america and just dumped trash out in the wild and burned things because it seemed like we could dump things forever without a problem, then we learned that it all adds up and we did very real damage.

D.Man ---- Thanks for the exclusively ad hominem attack demonstrating the poverty of your position. You can do better. Try something substantive next time.

It's weird that many of the same people who don't trust Wall Street, Corporations, or the Media because of all the money and profit involved will completely and blindly trust the Global Warming cause that has billions if not trillions of dollars at stake for those pushing it. Scientist need funding and grant money to do their research but you think they are completely unbiased on the results of their research even if it showed they were wrong? Where would their funding come from then? How about all the money involved between countries? Money and power are all that is being talked about because everyone knows this is a sham.

I love how in the photo they have the guy from San Marino a row back.

The country of San Marino is 24 sq miles with a population of about 30,000.... I remember high school geography and doing a report on San Marino where I put up a picture of Dan Marino as the President of San Marino.

.... well, I thought it was funny at the time. Teacher, not so much.



Scientist need funding and grant money to do their research but you think they are completely unbiased on the results of their research even if it showed they were wrong?

of course there is some bias among some scientists.... but that's the beauty of science, it depends on proof - not rhetoric, not ideals, not faith. Proof.

Science must be testable and provable, otherwise it's not science.

So if something is proven wrong, it's wrong - and I would argue that the scientific community as a whole has a lot of integrity on this point, because 'false' science would basically be cheating one-self out of a profession.

The very foundation of the scientific method depends upon objectivity and integrity. Thankfully there is something called peer - review.

Physicist-retired..."Very few people understand just how bad this is going to be."

I took a course in Depositional Systems while getting my Geophysics degree. On a field trip, we studied sediments and determined that they were back-bay deposits. That would be sediments deposited in a back back environment similar to Galveston Bay today.

Those near ocean deposits were by Lubbock, Texas. Not that sea levels are anticipated to rise that high again, but people should look that up on map for a small clue of how bad things might get.

One series of tectonic, domino reaction plate shiftings with or without combined pressured/released volcanic eruptions on large scale will do more than man ever has to change all to do with climate change. Again, to say we're innocent is as naive as to say we are blame, .... soley.

Some has been put into place that cannot be stopped in the immediate future both economically and environmentally unless all are willing to accept radical changes that involve more negatives than positives, and in America you can thank our sold out representatives for taking us down this road. Many that are passionate about more or less extreme emission cut backs where we can control them, i.e. American legislativeness, are actually supporting more of the same that have been causing both the economic and environmental failures.

Gradual changes work; physiologically, politically, economically..... but radical, hastened reactions/ changes? Never. The gradual fuel/technology change has been ignored, and that can't be corrected or changed. It's a done deal. So, in order to not cut off the nose to spite your face, we need to continue to use fossil fuels, work on emissions, bring jobs back home, bring back revenue for Americans, get rid of those on the Hill and elect Real Representatives, and then while once again flourishing put substantial effort into cleaner technologies, recyclable ones, solar and wind sustaining ones that can be manufactured by using the same (eventually).

Some of what the fear the Gore closet crowd likely said unto themselves was 'better over there than here cuz it's coming.... man!' without realizing that money is needed to develop truely implemental technologies that are cleaner, that polluting elsewhere on the globe is STILL global pollution/CO2 emissions/ if you belive in it 'man made global warming' and selling out the backbone of your economy leaves you with...... wait for it..... NO backbone to your economy.

Green jobs, created jobs, all service sector, professional jobs.... more or less overnight. Overnight, because that's what the majority of Americans, those that HAD backbone American jobs , NEED them by. Really, should've said 'needed them by' because how many have lost all already? Emotivism, sensationalism, cause and spirituality all easy to sell; practicality? Takes a back seat, in fact.... here's a little emotivism and sensationalism that puts America, Her economy and reality in perspective - 'get in the back of the bus'. That's EXACTLY this mentality. Full segregation betwixt those that govern, and those that are Americans. Same with corporate America, not real American Capitalism.

We could have and should have had the money and means and workforce to achieve the smoothest, the most innovative and best working transition from fossil fuel dependance to renewable, solar and wind and other naturally, non pollutive harvested technologies on the planet WHILE ALL AMERICANS remained employed. Now, some see two wrongs as making a right and again further the agenda of those that strangulated America and Her economy.

Moderation..... use what you have to, retain an economy and flourish it while working towards better, and better, and better. And, do away with the illegal Fed Reserve, NAFTA, GLB, and the IMF, and... oh, there's not that much time.

Reasons we know this is a scam!

1.) If Burning fossil fuelsis the biggest problem, and Nuclear Energy is a very clean alternative, France and other European nations get 70% of their energy from Nuclear, yet we aren't building any new plants? Yes, Nuclear power has some very hazardous waste involved but if we are truly on the brink of destruction we would need to take that inconvenience to save ourselves, but those people who say we are in danger are also the same people against using Nuclear Energy?

2.) You will hear more and more the debate being about "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming". This is because some evidence shows we have stopped warming and may even be cooling a little. When data shows warming, it's because of the humans, when it shows cooling, it's because of the humans, when there are more storms then normal, or less storms then normal it is always a sign, you can't win.

3.) Anyone who says that CO2 is the only the reason we might be having temperature changes is an idiot. The SUN gives us our heat, yes our atmosphere plays a role, but are the number of sun spots taken into account in these studies? Why are the Ice caps on Mars melting if man is the problem? To many Hummers driving around on Mars?

4.) MONEY. To many people who support this stand to make a lot of money if we buy it. Al Gore has a huge energy draining home, and flies around on a private Jet, taking limousines everywhere. Is he really that worried?

No more treaties, screw Europe. Let them get their own house in order. The current fiasco underscores the need for real borders in this world. People are stupid. They do not learn by observation, travel killed off the dinosaurs. The economy will never recover unless we end this one world madness, and start worrying about No. 1. You want to fix the climate. Good then you can start by banning cargo ships, and making goods near where they are to be used.

hs,

Interesting comment.

Are you involved in similar work today?

For someone named "Logic Required" you sure seem to fancy the logical fallacy. Maybe your name is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

#1 is a strawman. Many people support the use of nuclear energy, especially 'evil scientists'. You seem to be significantly behind on the times when it comes to what you think people feel about nuclear energy.

#2 "global warming" has always been a misnomer used primarily for easy consumption by the media - a simple label for a complex problem. Climate change is more accurate because carbon emissions don't just = warmer climate. The global climate is an interdependent and intricate system that will change if 'thrown off' .... some places might get warmer, some colder. Climate isn't solely reliant upon the sun and atmosphere - there are many other factors including ocean temps, currents, etc. Each factor influences the next factor..... making it very difficult to predict the exact outcome.

#3 - short answer, Yes. Solar activity, natural cycles, and all other factors are taken into account in these studies. Afterall, it's the very same scientists who study such natural processes that are developing climate change theory. The issue is that the known natural processes are not sufficient to explain the observed variances..... that's where human-impact comes in... the most likely culprit and logical choice for study.

Studies are still forthcoming on exactly how much impact man's activity has on the climate... but so far the evidence is relatively strong. When factoring in human impact along with natural cycles, the variances fall in line with projections - it 'fits' so to say.

Shuklack,

LogicReguired, is NOT me defining myself. It is Logic REGUIRED "required" spelled wrong as to show the absurdity of many post.

I could post studies and conflicting reports all day to every argument put foward, but that gets old and and it is one scientist opinion against anothers. My point is this Theory, (which at least you admit it is still just a theory) has a lot of questions and holes, and how far are willing to go on such a theory?

Please read my post 127.20 and answer those questions as part of the debate.

@Irespond

there are a little under 7 billion people on the planet...as apposed to your mistaken 70 billion...made up , inaccurate , uninformed , sensationalism...hmmm...JUST LIKE the warming hoax data...seems liberal ARE all alike

and no , your "I exagerated to make a point" excuse doesn't cut the mustard given the context of your post

"; while 70 billion people put a lot of stress in our planet."

sorry Shuklack , man has only been "scientifically" studying the environment and weather and man's affect on them for a few hundred years...the earth has been in play for 3.9 billion years (give or take) ...we don't know squat!

after all the earth used to flat..................for awhile

oh , and neutrinos were recently clocked at speeds FASTER than the speed of light , pretty much pimp slapping Einstein's theory , so science isn't an "exact science" after all...isn't it cool?

global warming? More plant growth, longer growing season, more rain and other people get to have beachfront property. Sounds good to me. People will adapt as always. Whenever these fearmongers whine about wiping our humanity, they only whip out their own credibility. We've already survived much worse.

@ Harry et al:

Yes! my mistake...I wrote that we are 70 billion in a hurry and half asleep...We are 7 billion.

LogicReguired- All I ever see is "I've seen many studies against this by SO MANY reputable scientists, it would be such a waste of my time to post them; and I'm a genius anyways." yet whenever these articles are posted they are dis-proven or by non-reputable scientists (I love that list of the scientists that one senator uses and it turns out almost all of them are paid for their opinion and/or retired and/or economists).

Your arguments appear to be consistent of "I think these people are horrible, they support greenhouse gas curbing, so therefore greenhouse gas curbing is horrible"... ok? Maybe those people aren't all that bad, and/or maybe who cares? I support global warming research, and nuclear plants;global climate change makes more sense to the masses so it was changed (kind of like how centrifugal force is called a fictitious force and people ran around calling it a force that doesn't exist); and Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming and his rise and/or fall doesn't determine how scientifically relevant a topic is.

Shuklack nailed the rest. Also, a lot of european nations are going for Nuclear, and the main reason we aren't is because after every accident (or almost accident) the american people freak out about it and avoid it for decades (People are still freaked out about 3 mile island). If only we'd react the same to things like Texas City Refinery, or Deep Water Horizon.

We should stop unilaterally because it's the right thing to do.

That's easy to say, but hard to do when the ramifications of acting unilaterally is to plunge your children into an abyss that, due to the conditions of the world around then during their upbringing, they will be utterly incapable of adjusting to, given that it would bring about such a radical, negative change in their circumstances. It is a bit like asking a parent to let their own child fall to their death, so that ten children halfway across the world can live: The calculus of compassion is objectively in favor of such a sacrifice, but I doubt any parent would be honest in saying that they'd readily make that decision. The calculus of compassion simply doesn't work objectively.

Giving billions of dollars to 3rd world countries seems like a waste, the only thing those countries will spend it on is arms for partisians.

It just makes more sense to develop legislation that has an exceptable ppm for products and facilities within the domestic market and apply that to customs.

One thing that aggrevates me is emissions, not that my vehicle catalyst won't pass, but the fact that there's manufacturing design flaw and there is a fault in the circut and the consumer has to pay difference.

...........''There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.'':NEWSWEEK april 28 1975 on the coming ice age........I am not a big believer in the Co2 global warming theory as I believe it has too much of a religous,political and scam for profit {al gore} motivation,not to mention Obama's favorite ''redistribute the wealth" {cap and trade} but my god folks we need to breath! Common sense would tell us that the burning of coal that is not properly scrubbed of toxins and particulate matter will surely shorten our life expectancy,of this I believe we can all agree. Coming ICE AGE?

Peace Lover

Could global warming not be part of a natural cycle that the earth goes through every so often ??? I fully agree that man has done his fair share to screw things up . But I still wounder . The earth is comingto the end of a wobble cycle . That alone changes where the sun hits the earth ( that alone can change things ) . Science is also pointing to a possible polar shift . Wounder if that also plays into this ??? Man has never lived through any of these events before . We have not been on earth long enough to have done so .

bob

Could global warming not be part of a natural cycle that the earth goes through every so often ???

No. Really no.

Watch the embedded video in the article. There is no time in the history of the planet when greenhouse gases rose this quickly.

None.

We are conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only habitable planet we have.

bob1/28''Could global warming not be part of a natural cycle that the earth goes through every so often ??'' Actually I agree with you,but that does not make it any less important to keep our air breathable and our water drinkable. The C02 theory is debatable and if it is true it cannot be stopped the third world is burning everything they can get hold of to heat and cook,poor people do not care about C02 they only care about eating and staying warm. But we can try to keep our air as clean as possible with existing and developing technologies.

Peace lover

YES !!!! We must clean up our air and water !!! If we do not , then we will have successfully polluted our selves off the face of the earth . As to how we clean up our mess ??? Looks and feels more like a dog fight over money and profit . The captains and kings of industry refuse to admit their wrong doings and refuse to pay for let alone clean up the messes they make . As a result of that we all suffer from their greed .

bob

I wish Al Gore had never invented global warming.

irespond

Slight correction if I may. I'ts 7 billion people. Not 70 billion.

Roy

I agree with you. China and Russia along with many other nations always receive a free pass.

As to the rest of you who believe this nonsense about climate change and how humans are going to save the planet......guess what? The earth has been changing for millions of years with far fewer people and without cars, trucks, planes, oil, coal etc.... In the 1970's it was the next "ice age." Now it's global warming hidden under the guise of "climate change." You'll never stop it.

Maybe one of you geniuses can figure out a way to move the continet back together. Then I won't have to fly so long to get to Europe.

I wish Al Gore had never invented the internet.

There's actually considerable debate over how much the climate is changing and especially how much humans have to do with it. THere is documented cases of many top GW scientists admitting that they exaggerate the evidence and that they are disappointed in the lack of evidence. It's not to say that we have nothing to do with it and definitely not to say that we shouldn't live cleaner and care for the environment, but the people screaming about vast overhauls costing billions of dollars need to hold up a bit and make sure we aren't wasting that money and effort on something that is out of our hands...links to those stories below. Again...this never says we aren't really responsible...just that it can't be determined and that the projections may be a little exaggerated.

apparently the links won't post...just look up "Climategate" or "climate scandal". It's all over the place.

We have very little knowledge of the cycles of this planet. It has been fully 9 degrees warmer than now on average, and as many degrees colder on average.

How do you know that it's been '9 degrees warmer' if our knowledge of past cycles is so limited, Really?

To say that the science in conclusive that it is human activity that has caused the average temperature to rise 1.6 degrees is to discount what we do know.

There is a vast amount of scientific research, accumulated over 170 years, to show that human activity is indeed responsible for our current warming. What can you point to that shows otherwise?

Climategate was found to be nothing but cherry picked e-mails, the majority of information still points to global warming. A few things were written poorly, woopty doo.

There is a vast amount of scientific research, accumulated over 170 years, to show that human activity is indeed responsible for our current warming. What can you point to that shows otherwise?

Wow, 170 years of research on a planet that is billions of years old. There is also a lot of research that shows the exact opposite, but many scientist and politicians just choose to ignore that data.

Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

or

At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

and

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.

Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.

Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

And many other stories to back up the green house myths. Simply google Green House Myths to find out more.

Hugin and Munin -------- Global Warming alarmists have consistently attempted to suppress research on the issue and deny access to evidence they claim demonstrates its existence. They have moved to deny anyone who is skeptical the opportunity to publish such views in scientific journals. And they have claimed the issue is settled. No issue in science is settled. As we speak scientists in Italy are claiming that the speed of light is not the universal speed limit. These Alarmist are channeling their kindred in the past who claimed it was settled science that the sun revolved around the earth , that microbes did not cause disease, that the continents of the earth did not move.

Peace Lover --------We've been burning coal for well over a hundred years and yet life expectancy during that time has continued its march upward rather than decline.

Wow, 170 years of research on a planet that is billions of years old.

Yes, Logic, because prior to that time, the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide were not known.

Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

See Milankovitch Cycles. Earth's orbital eccentricities drive the planet into and out of Ice Ages - not atmospheric CO2.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

And began a meteoric rise after the developed countries began scrubbing emissions in the 1970s.

Burning fossil fuel produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate aerosols. These air-borne particles block sunlight. As soon as we began addressing air pollution, temperatures rose again. We recently saw the same thing happen when China began burning fossil fuels in a big way.

They're starting to put scrubbers on their own coal plants now. Then watch this thing really take off.

I can't address any of your other points without a link. But it's wrong to say that the planet has warmed only 0.3C since 1850. Even skeptics don't agree with that statement.

They have moved to deny anyone who is skeptical the opportunity to publish such views in scientific journals.

Source?

Global Warming alarmists have consistently attempted to suppress research on the issue and deny access to evidence they claim demonstrates its existence.

Proof?

They have moved to deny anyone who is skeptical the opportunity to publish such views in scientific journals.

Evidence?

As we speak scientists in Italy are claiming that the speed of light is not the universal speed limit.

Not exactly. Oversimplification for the sake of rhetorical argument. Please be more honest next time.

These Alarmist are channeling their kindred in the past who claimed it was settled science that the sun revolved around the earth , that microbes did not cause disease, that the continents of the earth did not move.

You mean the religious? Kindred?

But pointing out past errors really serves little purpose other than to show that the scientific method and scientific integrity has prevailed beyond proofless assertions and preconceived notions. So thanks for the supporting argument there.

Undoubtedly, there will be denialists, naysayers, and all sorts of bias among scientists. They are humans with whopping egos too yaknow. But the process: the scientific method, will lead to the truth.

Climate change theory is relatively well supported - but no doubt there is still a lot to explore and examine. I wouldn't say it is anywhere near the robust level of say, the Theory of Evolution..... but it is fairly simple really:

Essentially Climate Change scientists are saying this: "After accounting for what we know about natural climate processes, including natural cycles, solar activity, and other phenomena.... there appears to be an unaccounted for variance in the data which would indicate an "x-factor" that is also effecting climate. We suspect that this x-factor may be human impact, which is not only likely, but is also supported by this research (xyzyxyxzyxy). Of course, being science, these conclusions are welcome to be tested and disproved - but so far they are standing strong."

It's not like natural warming / cooling cycles are some secret esoteric knowledge that only climate change deniers know exist - lol, climate scientists account for such cycles to the best of their abilities. The problem is that natural processes alone are simply not enough to explain the predictive climate models..... which led to the initial hypothesis of climate change by influenced by human activity. Really not very far fetched, we have proven that we are indeed capable of afflicting substantial and massive change to the local environments in which we live - in an interdependent global ecosystem, such as the climate - it's only logical to assume that humans may be partially involved in climate change.

Is Global Warming real, is one debate, the other debate needs to be what needs to be done about it if you think it is real?

If you think it is real, and that we are in danger please answer these questions.

1.) Do you think if America signed said treaty the overall CO2 emissions would go down that much? Wouldn't businesses just leave to countries that are not bound but such laws or standards of the United States and Europe actually making things worse?

2.) Is the danger so great that you are willing to possibly cripple an ailing economy, hurting many people?

3.) Is there any evidence that says if we cut or emissions by the standards being put forward it would be enough to slow down or stop global warming. If we are in such bad shape is cutting 20% over the next few years actually going to do anything other then cost billions of dollars?

4.) Other then beach front properties going under water is their factual evidence that warming is a bad thing? Maybe droughts make it harder to farm in some places of the world but the warmth should then make it possible to farm in other places previously to cold. Does anyone know for sure storms would be greater and more powerful or is this again just a theory?

1.) Do you think if America signed said treaty the overall CO2 emissions would go down that much? Wouldn't businesses just leave to countries that are not bound but such laws or standards of the United States and Europe actually making things worse?

Depends, probably not. There is no harm in trying to clean up though, is there? Sort of sounds like you're making the same excuse that non-voters make, "oh, it doesn't make much of a difference so why bother?"

2.) Is the danger so great that you are willing to possibly cripple an ailing economy, hurting many people?

Is the danger so insignificant that you are willing to ignore the problem, passing it off to future ailing economies?

3.) Is there any evidence that says if we cut or emissions by the standards being put forward it would be enough to slow down or stop global warming. If we are in such bad shape is cutting 20% over the next few years actually going to do anything other then cost billions of dollars?

Scientists would do well to look into the potential impact of such reduction, I agree. But refer to my answer to #1 for the rest.

4.) Other then beach front properties going under water is their factual evidence that warming is a bad thing? Maybe droughts make it harder to farm in some places of the world but the warmth should then make it possible to farm in other places previously to cold. Does anyone know for sure storms would be greater and more powerful or is this again just a theory?

It's not just warming, that's a misnomer. It's called "climate change" now because it's more accurate than the 'made for media consumption' term of global warming.

Now, would a variety of climate changes be bad? In the short term - yes - many will die. Long term - we will adapt.

Now, of course there is little humans can do against the natural processes of climate change, but when it comes to our factor - our side of the house.... we can maintain that variable to a minimum. The volatility of the human factor makes for an unstable and unpredictable future - which is a bad thing, no matter how you slice it.

LogicReguired -

1.) Do you think if America signed said treaty the overall CO2 emissions would go down that much? Wouldn't businesses just leave to countries that are not bound but such laws or standards of the United States and Europe actually making things worse?

Business are already leaving the United States for other countries and with tax credits supported by our government.

2.) Is the danger so great that you are willing to possibly cripple an ailing economy, hurting many people?

Yes/No - If global warming is happening (and I believe it is), then the cost of doing nothing is a greater threat than crippling the economy. Any changes to our economy would have to be done gradually and not overnight.

3.) Is there any evidence that says if we cut or emissions by the standards being put forward it would be enough to slow down or stop global warming. If we are in such bad shape is cutting 20% over the next few years actually going to do anything other then cost billions of dollars?

YES!: Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems. We also have the ability to create many new jobs by introducing renewable energies.. and WE Would no longer be at the mercy of rich oil companies or 'Speculators" who zoom the price of oil up with no reason.

www.articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/18/opinion/la-oe-kintisch18-2010apr18

4.) Other then beach front properties going under water is their factual evidence that warming is a bad thing? Maybe droughts make it harder to farm in some places of the world but the warmth should then make it possible to farm in other places previously to cold. Does anyone know for sure storms would be greater and more powerful or is this again just a theory?

Yes.... Let's see, texas has the worst drought in over a hundred years. Let's say this continues, where do you suggest 24 million people go? Can they move to California? Would they be able to support that kind of population growth? I understand where you are coming from, I do.. there are no guarantees, but the evidence is strong enough for me to believe, global warming is a reality

My Answers

1.) Do you think if America signed said treaty the overall CO2 emissions would go down that much? Wouldn't businesses just leave to countries that are not bound but such laws or standards of the United States and Europe actually making things worse? I think like most UN treaties this would do nothing for the overall problem but would hurt America who already has budget problems and a bad economy, yet at the same time give billions to other countries, some who have dictators as leaders. It is redistrubtion of wealth on a global scale.

2.) Is the danger so great that you are willing to possibly cripple an ailing economy, hurting many people? I am not seeing the danger that was promised years ago when this first started. I do want to move towards cleaner energy and more conservation of resources, but think we have time to do it in a way that doesn't impact millions of people. It will be done over time with advancements like always. The building of some Nuclear Plants would be a good start for a country like America who buys most of it's energy from other counties and uses so much fossil fuel.

3.) Is there any evidence that says if we cut or emissions by the standards being put forward it would be enough to slow down or stop global warming. If we are in such bad shape is cutting 20% over the next few years actually going to do anything other then cost billions of dollars? I always read we have to do something or else but I have never read what would we be avoiding if we take these steps. It is almost like in one sentence we are in such bad shape things are going to come apart tomorrow, and then in the next sentence we can stop it all by a small reduction in CO2 in giving billions of dollars to other countries. Doesn't make sense. Maybe I missing something so let me know.

4.) Other then beach front properties going under water is their factual evidence that warming is a bad thing? Maybe droughts make it harder to farm in some places of the world but the warmth should then make it possible to farm in other places previously to cold. Does anyone know for sure storms would be greater and more powerful or is this again just a theory? Again I have read all these negatives but there would have to be some positives even if the overall is bad. Why is it no one ever rtalks about any positives? If you tell me nothing good will come from things being warmer, and that no region will benefit even if the overall is bad I again must question the theory. After all we know the temperature on Earth will change with or without humans so if we can't adapt to changes we are doomed no matter what we do.

Thank you all for answering my questions. I think we would all like cleaner air, water, and environment as a whole whether or not the Climate is changing or not. I also believe humans do have an effect, although I would question somes suggestions of the impact. My overall problem with climate change is the people behind it and the so called solutions to stop it. They seem driven by money and power more then by real solutions. I think if we could quit the "sky is falling, give me your money" dogma we could get more people on board in trying to make things better. The B.S.ing me into treaties using fear and unproven science just makes me want to sit on the sidelines. You could get more support if it wasn't always being shoved down peoples throats. It will take time but we could get there quicker if it was just admitted that we aren't sure but should try to clean things up anyway and give incentives for being clean rather then punishments for being dirty (within standards).

They seem driven by money and power more then by real solutions

Quite true, but since when has anything been accomplished without money and power being primary motivators?

I think if we could quit the "sky is falling, give me your money" dogma we could get more people on board in trying to make things better.

I agree - but I think the reason for that is because of the rest of the 'unwashed masses' who don't really have a stake in the 'money and power' motivators - the last thing left is the fear motivator. Money, power, fear. The only 3 things that ever seem to get things done.

If you tell me nothing good will come from things being warmer, and that no region will benefit even if the overall is bad I again must question the theory.

I don't think anyone would make the claim that it will be bad everywhere. The issue isn't just 'change' but the rapidity of the change. The rapidity is out of character with what we know of the natural processes, and so far evidence points to humans being a large contributor to the observed rapidity.

Rapid change is bad - because it is balance and predictability that we depend on for our livelihoods. Crops will fail, even in places that are getting 'better'.... some crops grow better in colder climates and under certain conditions that farmers have come to depend on.... if those conditions change over a relatively short period of time, it will cause all sorts of problems. There is the fishing industry, changes in ocean currents/temps could kill off whole populations, and booms in other populations. It would throw the whole industry into upheaval. Most of all though, water... fresh water is becoming harder to come by every year.... we lose just a few of those sources and it will lead to disaster.

Adaption takes time - and the more gradual the change, the easier and less strenuous the adaption. Whatever factors we can mitigate in order to ensure a more gradual change, the better.

"There is no time in the history of the planet when greenhouse gases rose this quickly. "

hahaha...."in the history"...show me the guy that has been around for all of "the history"....pure babble , drivle , and rhetoric

The ironic part of this is that while we're arguing about whether our actions are driving us toward climate change that would lead to a broad catastrophe, those same actions are more clearly driving us toward a water crisis that would lead to a broad catastrophe, and our actions that are the root cause of the actions allegedly driving us toward a climate and/or water catastrophe are unequivocally driving us toward ever-increasing violent conflict due in part to over-population. As much as there can be legitimate argument about the particulars of the severity of the impact of our actions on climate and what that would mean in the long-run, no one is even claiming that the changes that advocates are putting forward will increase the chances of disaster.

So, we're left to choose between some possibility of disaster (of some sort or another) going one way, and a possibility of less disaster the other way. So someone please remind me why people are opposed to the changes being advocated? Is the core argument against taking precautions against these things which perhaps we cannot really know the ramifications of really just avarice?

Once we get past determining the relative probabilities of things going badly, this isn't a scientific consideration - it's a moral consideration.

And I believe the US Senate voted this farce down 95-0, or something like that.

And I believe the US Senate voted this farce down 95-0, or something like that.

We'll end up regretting it later.

How do we get the GOP/TP onboard when their song says it will unduly burden business. To me, that is absolute BULL Shiite.

G

Critical Thinker,

I think you've got it exactly wrong. Businesses can do just fine in any environment (sorry for the pun).

It's the people of the world who will suffer. "Clean" energy is incredibly expensive. For the average American (who is rich by any reasonable standard), it's only a modest expense. Our collective standard of living can decline by 50% and we'll still live better than our parents or grandparents, but for much of the world, their only hope for more than subsistance living is cheap energy. When all the afflluent enviro-yuppies cut their standard of living by 50%, then I'll have respect for their "green" mania.

ROTFLOL @LOOKATMYCASTLE

No its called lifestyles people don't like us because the US HAD IT MADE FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS.

Trust me every country on this planet has it's wealthy who live an elevated lifestyle but the average even poor American has a better lifestyle then 3/4 of the planets poor downtrodden.

The above fact will never change there will always be people starving and living like serfs they just want that to come even more so to America.

Eugenics

Serfdom

Fuedalism

Global ism

Socialism

All come at a cost of losing liberty and eventually enslavement.

One world government and everyone paying taxes to a bank of the world.

This is the true reason for the carbon credit global warming fear mongering.

The shrill calls of global elite are already calling for this scam.

Lookatmycastle,

That is a lie, or you are ignorant of the numbers, which one is it? CHINA is the worlds biggest polluter.

http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/10/the-worlds-biggest-polluters/

Also Australia's emits more C02 percapita than the US

And to be fair, the US produces 40% of the polution, but it produces about 40% of all goods and services on the planet too, so the numbers are really not out of whack, just US productivity is compared to the rest of the world.

Next time look into things before spouting off ancient talking points. OK?

US produces 40% of the polution, but it produces about 40% of all goods and services on the planet

Source?

GDP, pretty simple....

Last year, the U.S. GDP was $14.58 trillion.

Global GDP was more than $63 trillion.

The U.S. produces 22% of the world's GDP - about half of what you posted, Sco.

TODAY, which is meanigless, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the number is about 40%. Even ten years ago the US was much higher, only Chinas and Indias and Brazils recent upticks have offset the numbers.

All you have to do is look at any year and it is obvious that we do not polute disproprtionate to our output.

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348

Look at China, with a GDP 1/3 ours and they pollute FAR MORE relative to GDP, that is my point. We are a mature economy and they are still growing. They are FAR dirtier that us, to deny it or defend them is ridiculous.

Sco- now, when the US and the rest of the world went through the industrial revolution.. how much did the US Pollute? How long was the United States the LEADER in world pollution? How much of the worlds natural resources does the US consume vs the rest of the world?

I'm definitely not going to defend a communist country that does not play by the rules... but as a responsible, and educated American, it's very CLEAR that we have a big stake in the world environment. Its about time we own up to our responsibilities.. end of story.

That graph is 5 years old, Sco. I gave you new data.

The U.S. does not produce anywhere near 40% of global GDP.

Why isn't anybody mentioning anything about how much the Bolsheviks pollute? They make everybody else look like pikers and if anybody says anything about it to them they just tell you to take a hike.

"Why isn't anybody mentioning anything about how much the Bolsheviks pollute?"

because these folks are anti-America not anti-Bolshevik...America is the worst thing on the planet don't 'ya know

It is very likely that climate change is happening. The climate of the Earth has changed many times throughout history, even before man is believed to have lived. Since we have only been collecting data for about 100 years, it is a bit of a streach to say that man is definately causing it.

Though I am in favor of keeping emisions in check as a precaution, I wounder why I haven't heard the word "DEFORESTATION" in reference to climate change in a couple decades. Protecting the Earth's ability to heal itself is far more important that emissions reduction.

Global Warming is real. Chuck Norris was cold so he turned the sun up.

;-)

Global warming is salutary. If it is not happening we should hope that it will. Cold is a much greater threat to man than warmth. Every year more people die from cold than heat. Our very civilization that began 8 to 10 thousand years ago came about , and was only made possible , because of the warming of the earth and the retreat of the Ice Age. Cold is death, warmth is life. What we should be fearing is the return of the Ice Age which the history of the earth tell us will ultimately occur.

Gary, not that simple - "global warming" is in fact a misnomer.  That's why it's called 'climate-change' now; because the complex nature of global climate indicates that climate can be significantly effected - but not necessarily just 'warming'.  Some places might get warmer, some colder.  Ocean flows may change.  We get a lot of warmth from ocean currents and other phenomena.  Imagine throwing a wrench into a complex machine....



is very likely that climate change is happening. The climate of the Earth has changed many times throughout history, even before man is believed to have lived.

This false dichotomy (logical fallacy) is a common one I see from denialists.

Simply because natural processes do change climate, does not necessarily mean that man has no impact on such changes as well. Both can exist simultaneously, which is precisely what climate change proponents are saying.

Climate change scientists take into account these natural processes, the problem is the rapidity of change indicates an unknown factor. That is where the hypothesis comes from, that this unknown factor is humanity.

I wouldn't go so far to say I am wholly convinced on how significant man's impact is on the climate, but I have little doubt that we CAN impact the climate - and that we SHOULD mitigate our potential impact on the climate.

Shuklack ------- And what I commonly see from alarmists is the attempt to switch the label from Global Warming to Climate Change. This is done because the evidence now shows that warming stopped and that presented a very inconvenient truth for the alarmists to deal with.

Moreover, as I said, warmth is life and cold is death. We should seek a warmer earth , our civilization has been made possible by the earth warming over the past few thousand years. The end of life as we have come to know it will come when the next ice age emerges just as they have over and over throughout the history of the earth. Talk about losing habitat, when a significant portion of the country is covered by glaciers a mile thick , as it has been before , that will be a loss of habitat.

You are probably a WalMart shopper, however, you won't have to worry about political affiliation, they will be Chinese.

GOP = Greed Over People

G

The bigots are out in force.

MOre like a mainiac than a critical thinker!

What folks? Where in the name of God do you get your ideas? The article never said folks are catching on to any hoax.

Have you ever heard of reality testing? You know, where you try to get some feedback from the real world to see what's really there instead of just what's bouncing around your own skull? Go ahead; give it a try, it won't hurt that much. And you might even find that Obama hasn't lied; that that's just another failure to perform reality testing.

Obama Lies:

Please do yourself a big favor and read up on this. You sound like a complete fool when you make uneducated statements. Read "hot, Flat & Crowded" by Thomas L. Friedmann for some 101 facts.

By the way, the earth is not flat but it is getting hotter and more crowded.

Save your breath, Lad. Don't you know a troll when you see one? They're paid to spread doubt, give the impression that opinion is divided. It's propaganda; probably funded by industrial polluters who would have to spend billions to clean up their act if the US went along with this.

Sorry, earth. Pollution control would cut too deeply into their profit margin.

So Obama Lies...does this mean: The United States (oh wait, all rich countries) have the right to use as much of the worlds resources as they want. We have no responsibility (ethical or moral) responsibility to help other countries even though we consume the single largest percentage of the worlds resources? We have the right to pollute our earth (300 million people) while ignoring the other 9 billion on the planet?

If that's what you are saying, you will never be known as the ugly american.. you are over qualified.

Name a resource that we use for pwoer that is not renewable?

Oil believe it or not is made from organic materials!

Coal is the same.

Carbon dioxide is a life gas needed by plants to breath and emit their own waste known as oxygen it's a basic lifeblock of this planet.

This entire debate is phrased wrongly and is once again about greed not saving anything.

I have said it over and over plant more trees stop hacking down rain forests regreen the world for every tree hacked down plant 20 more the cycle will reverse if it's reversible.

Uh, make that about 7 billion on the planet.

benr-3287919 -

Just how much time does it take to make oil and coal? 1 minute? 1 year? Millions of years perhaps?

scientists still don't know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is. A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.

www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html

The only 'greed' here is from the corporations around the world that control the energy supply. It's very simple, go to any big oil company, tell them we are going to start using another fuel, and see what they say?

Beg to differ benr - It isn't the nasty Ol' corporations that are the greedy and control the energy supply ones it is OPEC.

No one could possibly be as brainless as this! Dave must be a paid right-wing troll. Hey Dave, tell us; how much does helping to destroy the planet pay?

Dave...it is definitely a scam. In the early nineties, Obama funded the Chicago Climate Exchange from the Joyce Foundation. It is a scam to redististribute wealth. Goldman Sachs and their boys got in on it, too. Gore and (Sachs) Blood have their own company, GIM, registered in the Isle of Man to avoid U.S taxes. Franklin Raines, the guy who ran Fannie Mae into the ground and receicved 90 million, used 9 million to buy the formula for cap and trade. Research the Kyoto Protocol and see the trillions these guys have riding on the passing of this scheme. There are books out now suggesting the links between sunspots. The weather is CYCLIC.

They have now coaxed cities to join the and follow the agenda of an NGO called ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives. Support of this United Nations Agenda 21 violates constitutionality imposed limitations upon legal authority. This has brought our cities under control of the United Nations.

Why must liberals resort to personal attacks instead of civil debate?

Rest assured, the resorting to personal attacks instead of civil debate takes place on both sides of the issues, in equal measure.

Wave's of Grain - It is NOT some hoax for the global re-distribution of wealth, its a mere fact that the earth is undergoing extreme climate change. If this was, then how come we are not already seeing it.

Since you and so many others seem to think this is 'redistribution of wealth' please give some very tangible examples of how this is occuring, how much $$ vs the percentage of the WORLD Gross Domestic Product, and just how much has been redistributed in the last 10 years. If you can't produce actual tangible facts, then your comments are mute.

The reality is that there has been substantial redistribution of wealth over the years, from poorer nations to richer nations, and from poorer folks in society to richer folks in society, as in both cases the richer exploit the resources of the poorer, and are able to do so so effectively because of the power they can wield to ensure that they can continue their exploitation. It's not necessary something that needs to be immediately reversed, but it is high time that we acknowledged that what we have to a great extent comes from being able to exploit others, though the application of power on our behalf. Reasonable human compassion should take it from there, moving us toward a more equitable system over time.

Waves ofgrain is correct the carbon credit scheme is a scam.

It has nothing to do with saving anyone from anything.

It's about power and control.

Global cooling was the cry now it's global warming or is it now climant change I can't keep track anymore.

It was not intended as a personal attack wavesofgrain, the "piles of @!$%#" comment referred to the content of your post. However, I can see how my wording could easily be misinterpreted and for that I apologize. My characterization of the 'facts' in your post stands.

Dear Tyler

Thank you so much for noticing this insult. I do try hard to get my points across without directing sarcasm at the poster. Again, thank you!!

Since the USA is about the size of Europe, the title of biggest polluter goes to them.

Absolutely not.

The EU (all 27 countries combined) emits less than half of what the U.S. does every year.

Why? Because they've been actively working on getting off fossil fuels since 1980. Denmark will be able to create all it's electricity from renewable sources by 2030 - and be off fossil fuels completely by 2050.

We haven't even really started yet.

Why don't you worry about the population explosion. That is the greatest threat

AMEN, Bill!!

Hah! Bill H just says anything he thinks will sow doubt. Let not truth get in the way of a good argument, right Bull?

Bill H-1430012

lookatmycastle..... Since the USA is about the size of Europe, the title of biggest polluter goes to them. And it still hasn't been settled whether CO2 level is a leading or lagging indicator of global warming. And it still hasn't bee settled whether an increase in CO2 is a good thing or bad.

Why don't you worry about the population explosion. That is the greatest threat to the planet.

LOL Bill. Typical poster without any factual information to back it up. You think just because Europe is 'nearly' the size of the United States that they are the biggest polluter. I bet you are one of those people who look at a map and say "ooooh Greenland is bigger than Australia, when in reality, ITS NOT".

We have PROOF that the CO2 is part of the cause of global warming. Read up on it, you might scare yourself and get educated.

Proof rotflol you have diddly squat.

Carbon dioxide is a life gas needed by plants to grow.

Basic science and chemistry seem to be devoid of anyone on the climant change hoax.

and just what happens WHEN you have TO MUCH Carbon Dioxide in the air Benr? lol... its called GLOBAL warming

AGAIN, CHINA is the biggest poluter and AUSTRAILIA produces more CO2 per capita than the US.

Wyy does every liberal want to give China a pass on polution? They are dirtier than the US by leaps and bounds, remember the olympics, the smog made it impossible to even see the cities skylines and they had to shut down the factories to get it that clean!

China may be the biggest.... BUT THE US Is not far behind, and Australia? lol not really up there or in the top 10. Do some homework:

www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleID=USRTXRSKI#a=2

Also, consider how long the UNITED States was the top polluter in the world... and how many AMERICAN corporations are now in China? How many of them are there to avoid environmental laws as well... you know, thoses regulations that republicans say stymie business??

Its very clear that China does not deserve a free pass on this one... however, what baffles me is conservatives (and im not a liberal), that ignore the US and the impact we have on the world environment.

Everything lives in a goldilocks zone... too much water we drown, too little we expire... same for heat, CO2, Oxygen, Pressure, etc.

It seems there is a a gap devoid of basic chemistry and physics education here...

The RUSSIANS, nobody's even mentioning the RUSSIANS. Aren't they part of Europe?

Russia is #3 on the list. Russia is part of Europe, but mostly in Asia

lookatmycastle. You are highly mis-informed, China is the worlds largest polluter with about 3 times the output of any other nation.

Not so.

China is only slightly ahead of us - but we led the world for over 100 years, and China's lead is only a few years old. India is nowhere near us.

And considering that China and India both have around 1 billion people, their per capita emissions are far below ours.

The fact of the matter is, that the U.S. overall is one of the cleanest per capita in the world.

Not true, by a very, very large margin. I don't know where you're hearing this from, but out of 214 countries on the planet, the U.S. is #12. Most of the countries with higher per capita emissions are oil-rich nations in the Middle East.

you wonder why so many people hate us" is nothing less than "lets hate America" rhetoric

Tell that to the people in Fiji, East Timor, and other low-lying island nations. They are literally disappearing, while we argue about 'competitive advantage' with China.

Rotflol Odd

I live right next to the pacific ocean and it is exactly the same level as it was 30 years ago.

dont believe the lib lies, if they were right the temp would be 80 degrees and sunny right now instead of 25 and snow, they lie to steal your money to give to these pour free loadin nations

Hey Limbaugher... have you decided to run for president?? you know, since you are an expert on everything??

limburger,

Did my heart good to see you can't even spell.

No, of course it wouldn't be 80 degrees now, at least not in most of the U.S. Global warming so far is about 1.5 deg F, on average. How is that going to make winter go away? And if it did, what would summer be like? But even the 1.5 deg F so far is enough to have an effect on precipitation patterns.

Silverking,

It is not so astounding when you realize that highly paid demagogues can be very efficient when the crowd is a little stupid to begin with. Everyone keeps saying that some lefty greenie commies are making fortunes on perpetuating a global warming scam when they should wake up to the fact that it is the corporate pollutors who are the ones putting the fortunes in their pockets by avoiding having any regulations on their massive pollution.

You can see from the posts here that the old description of a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots", fits very well the actions of those being paid to thwart all efforts to slow down global warming.

It's kinda scarey to see that there are actually that many idiots amongst us. I've decided to do my part in trying to help the situation by writing a recipe book for longpig just so those kids and grandkids of the idiots will be able to eat.

Silverking, what is the evidence? How long have we been tracking temperatures on this planet? How long has the earth been in existence? Can you really take at max 300 years of data (thermometer first invented) out of 4 billion years and say with any certainty what the normal weather cycles of the planet should be?

Just curious.

Alsophia,

"Corporate polluters" putting all the money in their pockets? Hardly.

It's the everyday man on the street who benefits. He has cheap electricity, cheap gas and oil, and cheap food. All the conveniences in his life are cheaper because of cheap energy.

Do you think that making energy much more expensive will somehow benefit the little guy at the expense of those who produce it?

Don't confuse the leftist who enjoys the modern comforts.

He doesn't realize he is actively courting the lifestyles of the Amish and even then they will say cow farts are the problem.

No most of these people are so brainwashed they don't understand anything unless the idiot box spouts it or their green marxist handlers tell them what to say and think.

Education Indoctrination is a hard brainwashing to shake.

benr,

Indoctrination is a hard brainwashing to shake.

So true. You are a prime example.

economan,

You can say that yes, the corporate polluters are taking the money to the bank that they save by avoiding any regulations. And I might add that the amount of that money makes it well worth while to have paid demagogues fighting for their side. The big energy companies really do not have the little guy on the street's interests at heart.

Silverking, what is the evidence? How long have we been tracking temperatures on this planet? How long has the earth been in existence? Can you really take at max 300 years of data (thermometer first invented) out of 4 billion years and say with any certainty what the normal weather cycles of the planet should be?

There are literally dozens of ways to know what past temperatures looked like long before the thermometer was developed, who cares.

We use tree rings, ice cores, sediments, pollens, and many other methods. Scientists can reconstruct well over 5 million years of planetary temperatures using these methods.

For a very basic overview, just look here.

We can also reconstruct atmospheric CO2 levels going back billions of years. What's happening now has never happened before. It's definitely not 'normal'.

Physicist, how are the previous 5 ice ages explained then? Are those considered part of some "normal" weather cycle?

You know I can remember when we thought the elementary particles were protons, neutrons and electrons but we have discovered there are quarks, leptons, antiparticles, bosons etc.

Maybe...just maybe, we don't know everything there is to know about the earth's climate and and all the variables that cause it to change.

No one claims to know everything about climate change. All honest scientists looking at the data do know, however, that the temps of the earth are rising, that the glaciers are melting at an exponentially faster rate, that there are already in progress mass species migrations.......................

The main thing is that no one really knows what the outcome is going to be. The temps/climates in the past have done some flipping, ocean currents have changed (that's the 800 lb gorilla in the room), solar activities have influenced our climates........all these guys are saying now is that high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on the earth's temps, something that really cannot be denied scientifically (maybe politically but not scientifically), and that we are dumping record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere due to our carbon fuel based technology, and that we should be aware of the effect of that.

To not be aware of that would be akin to blindfolding onself before commuting to work. I'm not so stupid, are you?

who cares, How are the previous 50,000 scientific advancements explained if every unschooled blowhard was right who thought he knew more than the scientists who have worked in a field for many years?

Physicist, your right that we can get all that information...and all that information leads to the fact that our planet has gone through MANY changes in climate...some drastically, some quicker than others. There's no doubt that things are changing but it's completely guesswork to say how much is based solely on humans. There was that whole "climate-gate" thing that basically leaked emails of top GW scientitsts admitting they were disappointed in the lack of evidence, that they fiddled with graph layouts to make them seem more drastic, and that they picked and chose what facts to represent and what to discard. There is climate change, but no one has definitively said how much is due to humans and what is due to the natural planet changing.

Furthermore, as Who-cares alluded to, we don't know nearly as much as we'd like to think as humans. We've discovered new particles, thousands of new planets, and even challenges to our accepted laws of physics. Due to recent discoveries, your E-MC2 avatar may be out of date soon as faster-than-light particles have been discovered...previously thought to be impossible and what many of our physics laws are based off of. It's the definition of human arrogance to think we truly understand how this planet works and how we affect it.

Physicist, how are the previous 5 ice ages explained then? Are those considered part of some "normal" weather cycle?

Yes - absolutely.

The Earth's orbit around the sun has regular fluctuations in distance, tilt, and 'wobble'. Every 100,000 years or so, these fluctuations combine to produce an Ice Age.

Look at this graph.

See how regular the cycles are? They're called Milankovitch Cycles. They create the conditions that result in Ice Ages.

Maybe...just maybe, we don't know everything there is to know about the earth's climate and and all the variables that cause it to change.

I think alsophia covered this pretty well.

I'll just add that we understand the primary drivers of climate pretty thoroughly. Scientists are just working on the finer details, like how excess water in the atmosphere will act (more clouds? more torrential rain? trapping heat? blocking heat?) and such now.

But those really are details, with relatively small consequences. The fact that human activity is heating the planet is not in dispute any more.

There's no doubt that things are changing but it's completely guesswork to say how much is based solely on humans.

Not at all. That can be calculated with considerable precision.

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 °C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1 °C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 °C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability

Physicist,

Thanks. I don't think enough people are aware of just how quickly some of these changes can come upon us. I live in Perú and the largest Andean glacier is disappearing so fast it is scarey. Lots of scientists have been up there studying what has been buried under all that ice and have just recently come up with some very interesting info. They found temperate climate plants that had been so suddenly buried under snow that their physical structures were all still intact. In other words, one day it started snowing and didn't stop for a long long long time. Happened 5,200 years ago. I would suspect a changing ocean current.

Changes of that nature would probably be a complete disaster for our civilization.

OK, you guys convinced me! What now? Let's get rid of all the power plants, water treatment plants, steel mills, refineries, cars, planes, boats, and on and on and on....get some oxen and a piece of land to grow food, a horse and buggy and wait for the next scheduled ice age :-)

This is so exciting!

OK, you guys convinced me! What now? Let's get rid of all the power plants...get some oxen

We don't have to do that, who.

Denmark will produce more than half of their electicity via renewables in 8 years, and all of it by 2030. They'll be completely off fossil fuels by 2050.

http://drich13.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/26/9034296-this-is-how-its-done-denmark-plans-100-renewable-energy-by-2050

The people of Denmark live quite well. They just do it smarter.

alsophia,

I live in Perú

Wonderful place - I've had the pleasure of spending a good deal of time there.

and the largest Andean glacier is disappearing so fast it is scarey.

Indeed. Communities that depend on glacial melt for fresh water will be hit very hard by this.

They found temperate climate plants that had been so suddenly buried under snow that their physical structures were all still intact. In other words, one day it started snowing and didn't stop for a long long long time. Happened 5,200 years ago.

Off to do some research on that now - I hadn't heard about it. Thanks.

who cares-684280

No one is saying that this will happen over night but we do have the technology available to at least make gasoline powered cars obsolete. Of course, this leads to the issue that electric cars would get their electric power from coal burning power stations or nuclear plants. I will admit to not being sure about the environmental benefit of each of these but I am sure that one could regulate and put scrubbers on the coal burning power stations so that they would admit much less CO2 and other pollutants.

We can encourage people to get solar panels installed. I do realize the problem with this is that at the present time solar panels are expensive (even if they do pay off in the long run) and the majority of people in the world do not have the disposable income to invest in solar panels. However, there has been a great deal of research into solar panels and the cost has dropped over the years. If we encourage more research into this science it is very likely that we could make it even more affordable. The second problem that I see is that many jobs will be lost in the power stations and in power line repair. While some of these jobs would be made up for by the jobs created by the new solar panels we would also need to invest in reeducating the old power plant workers so that they would be able to fine jobs in other fields.

We can encourage bicycling in industrialized countries by creating bike paths and investing in making our cities safer places for its citizens. I don't see any down side to this but do acknowledge that it would involve a lot of effort and planning from all sectors of our society and that some people due to disability would not be able to bike.

I believe that everyone realizes that this is a long term problem that will not be solved in a day but even if Climate Change is completely false still none of these changes are bad things and are actually wonderful ways that we can improve our society. Who hasn't been in traffic on a hot summer day and had the urge to roll down your window to get a lovely breeze (AC is great but sometimes a breeze just feels more refreshing)? Do you? No, because you get a face full of exhaust from the cars around you.

Now I have seen a lot of people on here posting how climate scientists and Al Gore are making a lot of money on the climate 'hoax' so here are some numbers

In the first quarter of 2010 BP had a net profit of 5,598 million dollars (so around 5.598 billion dollars in the first quarter alone) (this is only the first quarter.) They made 3,140 million in the second quarter. (I didn't find an actual source that said why 2nd Quarter profits were so low but I am going to bet the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had something to do with it.)

That is just one oil company. I really don't think that climate scientists as a whole make that much in pure profit. While I am sure they have ok funding people need to remember that that funding goes toward hiring graduate students, funding for trips to measure these variables (how much does a trip to the Arctic cost to get a core sample cost? or to set up buoys in the Pacific to measure CO2 admissions), and for equipment. Overall I believe that if one were to compare the climate scientists net profit to any of the oil companies net profit then there wouldn't even be a debate on who was actually profiting.

As for Al Gore, I am sorry but he is one guy and even if he is profiting from his speaking tours, books, movies, and investments well then who cares. He could likely make far more if he invested in fossil fuel stocks or did talks for their industry.

Limburger,

Who stands to profit in this global warming game? Researchers? Al Gores? Corporate polluters?

The money saved by the corporate polluters by avoiding regulations is by far the biggest chunk of change on the table. It's no wonder they have paid demagogues like your daddy spewing lies for them.

@alsophia

Would you believe the truth if you saw it?

I doubt it.

The biggest lie going is carbon dioxide causing the problems.

Anyone with a carbon credit trading scheme is standing to profit.

Power, absolute control, standards of living, everything even you breathing is up for legislation and control.

Watch endgame global enslavement with a critical open mind and eye.

benr,

Truth is my best friend. That's why I don't buy into the Limbaugh crap. The corporate polluters are not standing to profit, they are already profiting.

The failures of the Republicans party trying to take away SS and Medicare so they can give their wealthy Blackmailers more money...To hell with the poor and needy. Let them freeze in the winter and stave the old and babies,let them die from bad water, do away with the EPA and thats what you'll have, just like all you Teabaggers want...You make me sick with your Me Me Me altitude. It just a matter of time before the masses raise up against you . Greedy and you all call yourself Christains. What a laugh: Your no better than the Muslims you all hate. Wake up America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WAKE UP: " Don't FRACK THIS UP"

I think proposals to turn our world upside down, immediately - give up the foundations of our society's energy infrastructure cold turkey, for example - are ridiculously naive and self-centered to some extent. The aim cannot be to cause a disaster now, to reduce the chances of disaster later. Rather, the aim needs to be to start turning the ship onto a course that is more likely to represent a lesser probability of disaster later.

jenn go to the limbaugh site, they faked all the data on global warmin, it all is a big lie, most all intelligent scientist and educated people know it is fake and laughs at anyone who still believes this garbage as a pure loon. dont let these socialist commies steal our hard earned money to give it to some poor nation-its all a scam and another reason to try to raise our taxes of us more well off successful winners.

limburger,

Only idiots go to the limbaugh site. It's their favorite watering hole. The real scam is the corporate polluters pocketing all the money they save by deregulations.

Educated people do not go to the Rush Limbaugh right-wing propaganda web site because he is a liar and he hates America.

Wonder if Limbaugh could pass a drug test?

Waves,

Anthony Watts is a failed weather reader who couldn't even get his Bachelor's degree after 6 years of attending Purdue.

He has never published a peer-reviewed scientific study in his life. He uses tricks to confuse people without a good understanding of science - and it works.

When 97% of the world's climatologists agree that human activity is responsible for heating the planet at an unprecedented rate, why would you take the 'word' of this one blogger over the vast amount of scientific research out there?

Because the U.S. Military certainly doesn't. Their latest report, published just 2 months ago:

Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National andInternational Security

because we know these scientist you mention are all frauds livin off the government dole and they need to keep the lies going to keep their 6 figure salaries and because Limbaugh who is never wrong and never lies has proven this is fake over 2 years ago-dont take my word go to his site and get the truth

limburger,

You're getting funnier by the minute. Answer an honest question for us inquiring minds. Are you getting paid for your posts?

Since you posed the question my guess is you sure are.

benr,

Truth is not a commodity. I have no reason for being paid.

arent you??

limburger,

Truthfully no. Are you? I'm doing this because I happen to know that a seed of truth planted brings a fruitful harvest. What harvest is going to come from your planting lies?

Not only does the military take climate change seriously, it was also scientists working for the military who made the first precise measurements of the thermal properties of CO2 in the atmosphere back in the 1950s. See the American Institute of Physics website (aip.org) for some of the history.

Fred -- It took 500 million years to accumulate all the carbon we have returned to the atmosphere in the past hundred years.

Fred,

Just google "carbon cycle". Plenty of info.

WOW I so agree it is already over! Too late the world is ending as we know it!

So I vote we all not go to work this morning and go get stoned and drunk instead

Fred,

Excellent question.

It's true that CO2 levels were much higher in the (very) distant pass - so high that oxygen-breathing lifeforms could not have survived.

When plants began absorbing CO2, and converting it into oxygen, they retained the carbon. The amount of atmospheric CO2 was gradually reduced, and when the plants died, they were buried (and took that carbon safely below the ground with them).

Humans have spent the last 200 years digging up billions of years' worth of carbon, and burning it. We are dramatically changing the composition of our atmosphere, and increasing the amount of carbon at a rate never before seen on the planet.

Really.

This 12-minute National Geographic video shows what will happen as the planet warms, degree by degree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfBMUd-Es0M

We''re already on track for a 3-4 degree change.

I've been studying this for a very long time. If you have any other questions, please ask.

youve been watching too many sci-fi movies, tune in to Limbaugh at noon and get the truth

And you are a paid troll for your faked god, rush limbaugh.

Kevin,

Nice try, but I believe trying to argue with idiots is going to prove futile. Especially when there are some very efficient and highly paid demagogues like Limbaugh on the public airwaves.

Egads pot calling the kettle an idiot.

Limbaugh has had his moments and yes he is pushing a specific agenda and yes he does lie at times but so does every other media outlet including this one.

Thats why you must look at other news sources and listen.

I tuned in and then turned off: My what an Idiot, moron. He making you all look like fools..I have to laugh: HAHAHAHA