44 Comments

• 1. neocon  |  December 18th, 2007 at 9:33 am

  The personal attacks on these scientists, and the effort to link them to big oil by our resident lefty lemmings begins in 3…….2………1

• 2. hermie  |  December 18th, 2007 at 9:48 am

  Have them thrown out of academia! Strip them of their credentials! Have them sent to re-education camps! The science is settled! Al Gore told us so!

  Only ‘consensus science’ is allowed by the Central Committee!

• 3. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 10:36 am

  Any time someone disputes the IPCC’s conclusions or makes a statement saying it’s a hoax that there’s manmade glbal warming my first thought is… hm … maybe they are funded by the people who want you to believe that. The people who want you to believe it’s a hoax and that science indeed backs that claim up tend to be the energy companies who, if people took action to reduce their carbon emissions, would lose profits if people began to believe the science that says humans are indeed causing this climate change.

  I have mentioned this before on here. Of course with one simple two-second google search I find that two of those authors are already known for being funded by one of the biggest companies in the world. EXXONMOBIL.

  I’m telling you guys. Every time these people dispute the science of cliamte change and say it’s natural or it’s the sun or ect etc, as in “no need to worry or change anything”…. they are traced back to an energy company.

  http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1175

  So what? So what if the only proof you have that climate change is caused by the sun comes from someone who gets grants from ExxonMobil.

  Nice job guys.

  Try again.

• 4. mitche  |  December 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am

  “Scare stories based on guesses just don’t impress me much”.
  Unless, of course Iraq and Iran are concerned, eh Mark?

• 5. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am

  Neither of the academicians receive any grants or remuneration of any kind from oil companies, neither is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. And steam is a useful idiot, a dupe of his socialist masters.

  neocon, it only took them an hour for the subjugated trolls to scurry to their socialist Masters for counsel; “Accuse them of being servants to evil oil!” sayth the Goracle, “No need to discuss facts; as I have told you all the facts you need! So it is written; so shall it be done!”

  Amazing the lengths these socialist eco-zealots will go to in an effort to contempt actual scientific evidence in favor of a consensus of true believers.

• 6. TiredofLibBullShit  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:29 am

  MeatS…..

  GREENPEACE?!? GREENPEACE?!?

  Oh, please. Your source does not even show links or funding, amounts, dates or NOTHING but their quotes stating that they are skeptics.

  The reverse can be said to be true. The IPCC and nations friendly to them are set to reap huge “profits” if the “carbon credits” plan that they want is implemented. These “consenting scientists” can be said to be funded (they receive grants too!) by big government.

  Note as an example: Al Gore’s own “documentary” shows what these “skeptics” are saying. Look at his temperature vs. CO2 graphs. He states that every time CO2 rises so does temperature. His own graph shows that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, not the reverse.

  Also note, that the “believers” NEVER EVER want to debate the non-believers. Says something about their “facts” vs the actual facts.

  Why can’t the climate models used by the almighty IPCC can’t predict climate conditions that have already been documented?????

  Nice try - you present “facts” just like the GW radicals and alarmists.

• 7. Joel  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:54 am

  Digital journal also has

  “Beyond that, it also explains why we are seeing temperature increases on Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptunes moon, Triton.”

  This is proof the Haliburton is already out there drilling for oil and warming the solar system, not solar energy causing warming.

• 8. Diana Powe  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am

  The fact that Professors Douglass, Christy and Singer have their work published in the International Journal of Climatology demonstrates the fact that they and their views on the causes of global warming are not subject to review by a “Central Committee” as suggested by hermie. The fact that they are part of a tiny scientific minority means that, to date, their views have not been persuasive to their fellow researchers. This back-and-forth process is called the scientific method.

  Apparently, for Mark and others whose opinion is that global warming is not primarily caused by human activity, the best “scientific” explanation is a massive conspiracy among some vast powerful groups to economically cripple the United States and make us a Third World country or somesuch. Not making changes to how we produce and consume energy in this country is much less preferable to a comforting opinion that only a few scientists know the truth and all the others are part of a conspiracy against us. This is all well and good if one is inclined to be cavalier about the future inhabitants of this planet. However, the resultant stance is similar to that of one of the possible choices laid out in Paschal’s Wager.

  Of course, the White House has accepted that human activities are at least part of global warming for at least five years:
  

  Energy security and climate change are two of the important challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously, and we are effectively confronting climate change through regulations, public-private partnerships, incentives, and strong investment in new technologies. Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. (emphasis added)
  Source: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2007/95840.htm

  The ideas about how best to go about it are their own, but the underlying premise is not that of the “global warming caused by human beings is a hoax” school of opinion.

• 9. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

  As academicians, the publications of Prof. David H. Douglass, Prof. John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and Prof. S. Fred Singer are subject to more scrutiny from peers than the IPCC’s conclusions. The “tiny minority of scientists” are actually the majority of those in the study of climatology, whereas only a small handful of IPCC “scientists” agree with AGW in its entirety; the majority of signatories are policy wonks and many IPCC scientists actually believe the Earth is warming but are skeptical about the amount of human influence.

  To be truly “ cavalier about the future inhabitants of this planet” one must first accept the radical and precipitously arrogant philosophy that socio-engineering can counteract the planet’s natural ebb and flow of climate change; further that a small minority of Socialist eco-zealots hold the only key to the survival of the planet and future inhabitants.

• 10. navydad  |  December 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

  Hey DL, how’s the bike riding these days?

  I was going to repond to DianakeepitlongcauseIliketohearmyselfPowe, but you took the words right outa my mouth…LOL!

  OT, but send me your email address and I’ll forward pics of a new hitch mounted bike rack that a friend of mine is developing. karluver1@hotmail.com

• 11. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm

  Darn, I responded to ToLBS’s mention of this paper by Douglass, et. al. on the previous “Global Warming Update” thread. The first comment I made is still “awaiting moderation”. The second has been scrubbed. The third is basically the same thing, only sanitized — I point you to where you can find the article and a cogent criticism of it, but it requires some copying and pasting. The point I tried to make on those comments (implicitly of course) is this: who among us really understands the science underlying this paper?

  Finally, I just posted a fourth comment on that thread (to me it appears as #41, but I don’t know how “awaiting moderation” comments appear on other people’s screens) that attempts to deal with the bigger issues involved.

• 12. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

  Rico, Navydad,

  As you know I don’t normally indulge in AGW threads as we who know just enough to be dangerous have already said all there is to say on the subject (AGW will be the Pet Rock of the 21st Century). The thing I find most compelling in the discussion is that the advocates of natural warming (solar and cyclical) are most willing and even invite debate, whereas the socialist eco-zealots are unwilling, unable, and vehemently opposed to any dissenting opinion or evidence contrary to their orthodoxy.

• 13. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

  He states that every time CO2 rises so does temperature. His own graph shows that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, not the reverse.

  Ok, since we are dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, what, say you, happens when this flow continues and grows over the next hundred years or so?

  Does the CO2 increase … and then … magically, one day, the climate balances back out and returns to what we have seen as a norm in these natural cycles? …all the while the CO2 is still increasing?

  CO2 holds in heat. More CO2 more heat.

  Unless Jesus returns and saves us first. har har

• 14. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

  steve,
  Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

  Steam, Your assesment is wrong;
  

  The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

  Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

  Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades. Professor Bob Carter

  And condescension from one so terminally ignorant is amusing.

• 15. neocon  |  December 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pm

  Or unless we impose emission restrictions on China and India, which both have stated they will not oblige.

  I guess they don’t care future inhabitants.

• 16. Diana Powe  |  December 18th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

  Dasein Libsbane,

  Having followed your link and discovered that 100 is actually “the majority” of 8,800 here in the United States (Source: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm) you’ll forgive me if I don’t find the story (which ultimately traces to the Canadian National Post newspaper which brought us the false story about Iran planning to make Jews wear badges last year) very compelling. What is the terrible threat of the global warming “hoax”. The letter says this:
  

  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. (my emphasis added)
  Source: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

  So, we have people who are both experts on climatology and global macroeconomics. Amazing! A new joint-discipline.

  What reducing global greenhouse gas emissions involves is doing something that we must do anyway. Change our global patterns of energy production and energy usage from ones that are centered around the limited resources of fossil fuels to other sustainable sources. Now, the United States could see this (being a country chock-a-block with entrepreneurs) as an opportunity to race ahead using our technological prowess or we could cling to the past and hope for the best.

  navydad,

  I’m sorry that I tend to go on a bit and that offends your sensibilities. However, don’t you think that if I could seriously challenge Matt and Mark’s points of view in two sentences that it wouldn’t tend to mean that their points of view were pretty clearly lame on their surface? Of course, if Blogs For Victo(r)y is only properly an echo chamber in your mind, then I guess points of view that involve chains of logic don’t fit in.

• 17. Mark Noonan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

  SteaM,

  So, Greenpeace - which has a vested interest in keeping up a very alarmist vision of global warming in order to keep the donations rolling in - says that one of the lead authors is connected to ExxonMobile…and what is the connection? From your link, it is that one of the authors is connected with the Heartland Institute and that an ExxonMobile executive is part of Heartland…except that when I went to Heartland, I didn’t find the ExxonMobile executive Greenpeace says works there.

  Essentially, you are coming here to lie about the background of a man based upon the false word of a group which has a vested interested in discounting all global warming doubts. Instead of doing this, why don’t you try to refute the assertions?

• 18. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

  no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

  So the last top 5 warmest years have occured since 1998. With all of them, other than 1998, being in the last 5 years. My source for that is NASA. So your proof is that no ground-based warming has occurred? Head-In-The-Sand.

• 19. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

  Mark,

  The last part of that article says:

  Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

  Pointless and costly. Hm … wait a minute. I want a second opinion because I think these guys are playing a risky guessing game here. It’s only pointless if you can prove that without a doubt. If there’s any doubt, which there is a lot of, not just a little, then we are better off being safe than sorry. If it’s costly… well, what does a scientist care about the cost for? And how does he know? Maybe he’s underestimating the ingenuity of the American people and humans in general.

  I’m just saying, nothing in that story convinced me to back down on my “better safe than sorry” position. I’m not that stupid.

• 20. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

  I don’t know what NASA you’re looking at, but According to NASA’s newly published data:
  — The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
  — The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
  — Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
  — Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

  If you’re not that stupid; Just how stupid are you?

• 21. Diana Powe  |  December 18th, 2007 at 3:19 pm

  Getting to the bottom of Dasein Libsbane’s post, we find this full-blown explanation of the change in the data from NASA:
  

  August 7,2007:
  A discontinuity in station records in the U.S. was discovered and corrected (GHCN data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center). This had a small impact on the U.S. average temperature, about 0.15°C, for 2000 and later years, and a negligible effect on global temperature, as is shown here.

  This August 2007 change received international attention via discussions on various blogs and repetition by some other media, with no graphs provided to show the insignificance of the effect. Further discussions of the curious misinformation are provided by Dr. Hansen on his personal webpage (e.g., his post on “The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla”).
  Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

  Then, if you go to Dr. Hansen’s site, you will find this, among other things:
  

  I am puzzled by views expressed by some conservatives, views usually expressed in vehement unpleasant ways in e-mails that I have been bombarded by in the past several days. It is a bit disconcerting as I come from a moderately conservative state, and I consider myself a moderate conservative in most ways. It is puzzling, because it seems to me that conservatives should be the first ones standing up for preserving Creation, and for the rights of the young and the unborn. That is the basic intergenerational issue in global warming and the headlong use of fossil fuels: the present generation is, in effect, ripping off future generations.
  Source:http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

• 22. Joel  |  December 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

  SteaM is going on the old report early this summer before NASA found out the data was faulty or corrupt. Never mind the new corrected report, the original faulty report supports his delusion. The corrected report, or factual report, was paid for by big oil.

• 23. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  Can someone give me a link to NASA’s website where they state these corrections?

• 24. David/California  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

  I will note that the IPCC instructed its staff to exclude from consideration any scientific articles, measurements, or findings published or released subsequent to 2005 in preparing its report for the 2007 Bali conference. Most of what’s been referenced above, and all of the work by astrophysicists, refuting the “consenus” of a man-made warming theory was consciously ignored by the IPCC and the Bali participants in order to maintain momentum for a ‘warming’ religion.

• 25. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

  A ‘warming’ religion?

  Oh please.

  I’m sure that oil companies care about you and the environment. They have you and your best interests at heart at all times.

• 26. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

  NASA.

  Not one of the statistics or facts presented thus far have anything to do with oil companies. I don’t understand your fixation with oil; are you simply not capable of discussing the facts?

• 27. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

  Dasein: If you’re not that stupid; Just how stupid are you?

  With all due respect, were the data you referred to (in #20) global data, or something more limited? You might want to check your references.

  And if the data you are referencing is more limited than global, and global is the other way around, you might want to ask yourself why. Because in a general sense, I think you’re right — there is a transition between not knowing anything and thinking you do, to not knowing anything and realizing it, to knowing a little and thinking you’re right, to arguing on the basis of ad-hominem arguments (e.g., who’s funding the research), to knowing just enough to be dangerous, to knowing more and realizing that one single study (pro or con) doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, to (finally) actually being able to critically analyze things including the vagaries of data collection, the vagaries of data analysis, and the vagaries of the conclusions based upon the first two, and fitting it all together.

  Personally, I think I’m somewhere around the “hill of beans” level on this particular issue. More importantly, the likelihood of my getting past that point is essentially nill. I know enough about science to know that one study doesn’t count for much in and of itself. And though in this particular case I can follow the math in a general sense, I don’t have the code nor the capabilities to assess it. Furthermore, I can’t evaluate the primary data at all. I don’t have access to it, and even if I did I don’t know enough about the collection methods or the physical chemistry involved to assess that part either.

  On the other hand, I know too many scientists (you know, the full-fledged, day-job, card-carrying types), and I am very familiar with what motivates them: for some it’s intellectual purity, for others it’s job security, for others it’s ego. Most of the time it’s some combination. But ego almost invariably figures into the mix somewhere. In academic science anyway (and as a general rule), prestige is more important than money. To most of these guys feeding their heads is more important than their wallets.

  And if you think about it, that motivation can display itself in a variety of different ways. The most obvious way is to be outspoken. Whether your James Hansen, Michael Mann, Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer (for example), you’re making big bucks by being outspoken. And you have to realize that. It is as it is, and there isn’t a whole lot anyone could (or should) do about it. So to impugn anyone’s authority on the basis of who pays them seems to me beside the point. If you want to talk science, talk science. If you want to talk politics, talk politics. If you want to formulate policy, talk both on their own merits. But don’t confuse things. That’s just stupid.

  By the way Dasein, who do you favor at present in the presidential race? And whoever it is, what is your perception of how they view the whole global warming/energy independence/renewable fuels debate?

• 28. Mark Noonan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pm

  SteaM,

  Indeed, better safe than sorry - but you should bear in mind a few relevant facts:

  If human actitvity over the past 100 years has increased atmospheric CO2 and this is driving all or part of global warming, then you should understand that there are 6 people exhaling CO2 in 2007 for every one who was exhaling in 1907. Essentially, the fact of the number of human beings and the basic needs of these human beings precludes anyone from developing a means to reduce atmospheric CO2 to the point where we stop and reverse global warming in any reasonable time frame (say, 100 years from now). Meanwhile, if you go through all this very expensive process of reducing human-generated CO2 and find out that it wasn’t the CO2 which was causing the problem, what then?

  The plain fact of the matter is that you don’t know enough - and the proponents of global warming in the scientific community - lack sufficient data to make a solid judgement on the matter. Let us reduce our pollution per person on the general principle that it is better to reduce pollution - but leave off these doomsday scenarios.

• 29. Dasein Libsbane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

  Rico,
  One thing regarding academic thought; there is the phenomenon of group-think that insures that the academic boat never gets rocked; or rarely. Those to whom the hiring decisions are entrusted, are the self same to whom the tenure decisions are placed. As we all tend to surround ourselves with others of like interests, similar backgrounds and a commonality of history, so too the denizens of the ivy-covered halls draw to themselves spirits kindred . Over time an academic theater becomes a circle jerk of internally driven thought and self-affirming rhetoric. Publications tend to support the prevailing theories and the outliers are treated with such disdain and are ostracized to the point of literary exclusion when that literature requires confirmation from the academic hothouse of the bona fides of the academician.

  In this world dissent really means agreeing with trepidation.

  Those that you know in the scientific community are hopefully from outside of academia where dissent is permitted and encouraged.

  My candidate was George Allen, but these days I’m leaning toward Romney; his record on the environment has been good, and his approach to “greenhouse gasses” is similar to Spook’s. I’d vote for Spook if her were running, but; alas and alack he is not as far as you know.

• 30. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 5:47 pm

  By the way Mark, who do you favor at present in the presidential race? And whoever it is, what is your perception of how they view the whole global warming/energy independence/renewable fuels debate?

  With a few tweaks here and there maybe, I think I’m adopting the above as my stock question on the matter. In the words of David Byrne, “This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around …” Or put less musically, “the stone age didn’t end for lack or rocks”.

• 31. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  Um… “lack or rocks” should have been “lack of rocks.

• 32. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

  Dasein, I appreciate what you’re saying (#28). And though I agree that the whole scientific enterprise can be swayed by “spirits kindred”, it also includes some of the best, most objective sets of checks and balances of any human enterprise. In the end, it’s about science (at least to the extent that it matters). For example, how does science as an enterprise match up against economics as an enterprise in terms of its ability to objectively right itself? Fold into that the following: how important in each case is “getting it right” to policy decisions? And how important is getting it wrong?

  That’s the thing for me. On that count I agree with John McCain… there isn’t a whole lot of down side, and a whole lot of up side, to “going green” — assuming you do it right. That, to me, is the only remaining question: doing it right. And that, unfortunately, is a very big question — and one that is very likely to piss off some on both sides of the aisle. IMO,”doing it right” has a lot more to do with dealing with monied interests on both sides than partisan interests on either. It’s about the status quo versus innovation. IMO, it’s time to rethink the battlegrounds. There is some big money — HUGE money — to be made here… if we do it right. And what’s wrong with making money?

• 33. USA  |  December 18th, 2007 at 9:33 pm

  All I have to say is, As a democrat I don’t have to cherry pick my sources.

• 34. Mark Noonan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 10:10 pm

  Ricorun,

  Still haven’t settled on a candidate - as for global warming: a rather trivial issue, for the most part…but as Democrats are set to impose a set of criteria based on wild guesses, I am determined to stop them from getting the power to do that.

• 35. phnx  |  December 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm

  SteaM,

  Have you considered how absurd your claim of bias is since the article is published in a peer reviewed journal, or are you suggesting that the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society is biased as well.

• 36. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

  Mark: Still haven’t settled on a candidate - as for global warming: a rather trivial issue, for the most part…but as Democrats are set to impose a set of criteria based on wild guesses, I am determined to stop them from getting the power to do that.

  I appreciate your partisan concerns. But IMO, you’re thinking too “old school”. More to the point, your “wild guess” theory is getting left behind. And part of the reason is… it doesn’t matter anymore: even if you eschew the science (with or without understanding it), there are other reasons to consider energy independence/alternative fuels as essential. Personally, I’d much rather sieze the day and reap its benefits than ignore the obvious — and the inevitable. As I see it, the economic opportunities in front of us in the form of alternative fuels are similar — though potentially much larger — than the microchip revolution of the 80s. And that was mighty huge. It still is. It transformed the world — and still is. How can anyone NOT be a part of it? The bigger part the better.

• 37. Kahn  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

  SteaM said “Any time someone disputes the IPCC’s conclusions or makes a statement saying it’s a hoax that there’s manmade glbal warming my first thought is… hm … maybe they are funded by the people who want you to believe that.”

  Well innuendo should be all the proof you need.

  prove it.

• 38. Mark Noonan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:44 pm

  Ricorun,

  I’ve been in favor of increased US oil production, tarriffs on imported oil and a crash program in nuclear power for quite some time now (out here in Nevada we’ve got the old nuke test site…its already pretty radioactive, so it seems a logical place to build a whole series of nuke plants). Energy independence is an admirable goal - but we won’t get it from the Democrats as they really are corporate tools…all Big Oil will have to do is throw some money at the Democrats and all their talk of alternative energy will be just that - a lot of talk.

• 39. Ricorun  |  December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 am

  Mark: I’ve been in favor of increased US oil production, tarriffs on imported oil and a crash program in nuclear power for quite some time now…

  Why are those your preferred alternatives? Can you provide a cogent argument?

  out here in Nevada we’ve got the old nuke test site…its already pretty radioactive, so it seems a logical place to build a whole series of nuke plants.

  I hope that’s not part of your cogent argument. Or at least I hope you could at least rephrase it so it doesn’t sound so ridiculous.

• 40. SEW  |  December 19th, 2007 at 7:11 am

  Ricorun’s ‘cogent’ argument, as well as the ‘progressives’. Renewable energy. Of course, great idea!

  Why didn’t I think of that! Any precise ideas as to how Rico? And why you’re at it, would not poverty be helped if you simply gave everyone a few million dollars? Great idea. No more poverty.

  Cogent? Or progressive logic?

• 41. ZootAllure  |  December 19th, 2007 at 8:55 am

  Question…why do any of you bother to dialog with steaming pile. Even being generous he is an idiot.

  From the Wash Times

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

  Steaming pile seems to believe that GW will destroy civilization.

  Steaming pile seems to believe that the “evil” oil companies conspire to convince us that GW isnt real.

  Steaming pile evidently believes that the oil companies have a long term business plan to wreck the planet and kill all the people that buy their product.

  Steaming pile is a moron.

• 42. neocon  |  December 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am

  Whenever I hear the IPCC release another GW report, I think hmmm, I wonder if they’re funded by governments that want us to believe that.

• 43. Ricorun  |  December 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am

  SEW: Any precise ideas as to how Rico?

  Well, here’s something to think about. (Note: it’s in MS Word format).

  The authors strongly criticize the “regulation centered” approach ala Kyoto. They suggest instead an “investment-centered agenda” which emphasizes a stronger concentration on public policies designed to stimulate the development of alternative fuels.

  About the regulation-centered approach they say: “This pollution regulation framework offered by environmentalists for dealing with global warming is, for many, a reassuring one. For 15 years it has provided policymakers, the media, and the public with a mental model for understanding how such a massive problem like climate change could be solved in an organic way by the market, perhaps the most powerful institution ever created by human beings.

  There’s just one problem: it won’t work.”

  They argue that regulations alone won’t reduce greenhouse gasses all that much, will likely prevent rather than stimulate clean energy sources from becoming cost-competitive, and aren’t likely to be adopted by developing countries to any great degree. As a result of those considerations, they also aren’t likely to stimulate the private sector to produce rapid technological breakthroughs.

  If you think about it, those in a nutshell are the main criticisms against the Kyoto Protocol.

  What they suggest instead is an investment-centered agenda, which they summarize as: Congress should pass legislation that either auctions permits or taxes carbon enough to a) establish a price for carbon sufficient to result in inexpensive emissions reductions, b) generate at least $30 billion a year for clean energy investments, and c) creating market conditions for the widespread adoption of these new technologies.

  They also discuss the various successes of past public investments in technology and infrastructure — public investments in things like railroads, highways, microchips, the Internet, computer sciences, and the medical biosciences have paid off, and in most cases continue to pay off handsomely.

  $30 billion a year might sound like a lot. But most of it could be paid for simply by repealing the various subsidies the oil and coal industries currently get. You may also think that this is a “progressive” idea. But have you ever heard Newt Gingrich speak on the topic? For example, in this YouTube clip he discusses the true underlying cost of the current energy structure, and the strategic importance of energy independence. If you think about it his way, a transition to renewable fuels could save us a dramatic amount of money.

• 44. Ricorun  |  December 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am

  SEW, I tried to respond to you, but my comment is “awaiting moderation”. Apparently I can’t post links here, for whatever reason.