I think I'd rather invest my money in the Stock Market, thank you very much!

on top of all the cold this winter there's a nor'easter off the coast of florida in may no less...must be that ole manmade global warming at it again whipping those manatee's to a froth...mass hysteria...get your carbon credits while their cheap...lol

Not sure I understand the statement in the initial post that says "People who believe AGW is a scam will point to examples of fraud as evidence that they are right,..."

All this points out to me; a skeptical, evil, denier, right winger, as we are so labeled, is that the solutions proposed to help "fix" this "problem" are nothing more than snake oil.

The AGW scam part comes solely in the fact that the science is not geared to identify the problem. It has been geared solely to manufacture the case that manmade CO2 is the problem.

I suppose one could argue that the AGW scam was arranged as a manner by which to create the need for a solution to the "problem". I guess it would be akin to a pharmacuetical manufacturer spreading a disease that only they have the cure for. But that would require an immense conspiracy on the order of the likes the world has never seen. I do find it odd though, now that I think about it, that many of the same people who declare AGW to be real, and that anyone who does not buy into are evil, are the same ones who often seem to buy into other "conspiracies".

Anything that happens to make money for Gore as he tells the world that we're going to be destroyed if we don't adopt Kyoto is surely a great conflict of interest and is also a scam.
Maurice Strong is all over this as well, more reason to shut it down immediately.

I firmly believe carbon credits are a confidence scheme being trumped up by Al Gore and his cohorts.

I also believe the main purpose for Al Gores schlockumentary was to frighten companies and individuals into taking this scheme seriously. He knows we can't do anything about global warming so why not scare people into paying indulgences for their carbons sins. Father Al blesses us, all will be forgiven.

The following links concern Al Gores' Generation Investment Management Co.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1568.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore_pr.html

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28075/story.htm

Al Gore and his fellow travelers stand to make an astronomical amount of money.

Yet another morning of hearing the anti-environment crowd cackling amongst themselves. ~yawn~

I don't think you'll find too many environmentalists being big on carbon offsets. I'm not. They aren't a product of environmentalists, they are a product of corporations who are trying to take advantage of what is becoming a big social issue. We need an established means of the government auditing these 'offsets' to make them legitimate. Otherwise, for all I know, these corporations just pocket the money to pay for their "administrative" costs.

Carbon offsets are a HUGE scam. If governments want industry to reduce CO2 output they should be offering tax incentives to companies that reduce CO2 by a certain percentage and maintain that amount or further reduce it.

"We need an established means of the government auditing these 'offsets' to make them legitimate."

What a joke. More taxes more redistribution of wealth without anything produced.

I repeat "Show me some real data that points me to AGW". The models all fail. AGW is NOT a theory. It cannot be tested and it has failed every time to make a prediction. I stand corrected, it a a crappy theory to be placed with Intelligent Design.

Mark:

That's right, anyone who so much as questions AGW or any part of it, or any thing even minutely related to it is "anti-environment".

Please, us skeptics, deniers, or whatever you want to call us are not anti-environment. I doubt that even the most hardened skeptics wants the environment to be trashed. How does that benefits us? What we want is good ole' common sense in this, and all, debates relating to environment.

I appreciate your comment that offsets are set up by carpetbaggers.

I'm certainly not anti-environment Mark,I just don't believe in this whole AGW fairy tale dreamt up by people who push it so strongly while profitting from the dubious schemes to save the planet supposedly. Show me the proof man is to blame and I'll certainly give it a good look. As of now there is none.

"What a joke. More taxes more redistribution of wealth without anything produced."

Way to show your Limbaugh stripes, Steve. At least we know it's not about science for you. And besides, how is government verifying that a corporation is doing what it claims to be doing constitute "redistribution of wealth?" If government didn't audit corporations, you realize that capitalism would be a failure, right?

also, we can't "test" AGW in a lab setting the way we test on mice, Steve. We don't have 100 planet Earths to play with in a lab and inject each of them with a trillion of tons of CO2 and observe what happens. And even if we could, there are very few absolutes that are proven in a lab setting. For example, I think we can all agree that tobacco is carcinogenic and increases your likelihood of cancer. But there are some people who smoke their entire lives and never get it. Most things in science are described as what is or isn't "likely" rather than absolutes. Similary, global warming is very likely caused by man, and we must figure out mitigation strategies as such.

I've said time and time again -- the only way AGW can be challenged is if real world data starts showing changes, and right now, all evidence points to AGW. Some deniers claim that we'll be cooling very soon, and to them I say, let's see it. Right now, we don't.

Global warming is very likely caused by natural processes just like it has done many times before man was even on the planet. Just because we're here to measure it now doesn't mean we caused it.

FYI, on April 25, 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published an analysis of CO2 emissions trade-offs. That paper assessed the economic impact of various approaches. The one that had the least impact in reducing economic growth entailed the the federal government's selling CO2 emission allowances as it did with the electromagnetic spectrum and then using its proceeds to reduce either corporate or payroll taxes. The approach that inflicted the greatest impact on reducing economic growth entailed the federal government's giving away the emissions allowances and providing equal lump-sum rebates to all households.

The report can be found at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf

Mark:

I am taken by how absolutely certain you are that man causes global warming.

Considering that individual weather events like rain and wind among others are likely much easier to influence rather than the entirety of the thermal balance of the earth, can you explain to me why, for the sole purpose of business growth and money, both the horrible capitalist ideals, many (maybe not you) AGWers decry, we have not been able to alter how those things work? Seems to me that evil corporations would do it merely to gain an edge on their competitors.

Better yet, tell me why people like Laura, not her expressly mind you, do such an incredibly poor job at predicting these simple things?

I mean given that man is likely causing the temperature of the entire large planet to change in unnatural ways, it would seem that our ability to influence local weather phenomena would be much, much greater. And, we should be able to figure it out and predict what will happen better.

Mark,

It is absolutely about science. Please look up theory and scientific method. AGW is a poor theory because it is PURELY conjecture. If a model cannot be tested then what good is the model? If a model cannot be tested and then it is used to make predictions that do not come true, then can it be deduced that the model does not work? Hmmm?

We cannot test with another planet, but we can test the strength of CO2 as a greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor. No test has been performed to validate whether CO2 is causing GW. A correlation was made after it was observed that CO2 levels rose and temps were rising. It certainly did not at the beginning of the current Warming trend that started 20,000 years ago. CO2 was 180 ppm when the Earth started warming after the last Ice Age. Once it reached 280 ppm temps have gone up and down with no change in CO2. I'm not saying GW is not happening, I just ask folks to look at things other than CO2 because NO ONE has made any good argument other than two events are occurring at the same time. The Y2K scare was not much different.

Yes I did bring up taxes, wasted time, and effort. I abhor paying a "tithe" to the CO2 religion. I need proof, not a fire and brimstone sermon telling me that I'm a bad person. Show me the DATA. Your knowledge of economics is lacking from your statement about auditing, capitalism, and government. Quickly, if gov't forces a company/citizen to spend capital on an UNNECESSARY project, that means someone is getting paid to produce nothing of value. That is involuntary Wealth Redistribution, there are many other forms I am subject to that you may advocate as well. I'm not sure what you mean by capitalism being a failure without auditing.

"Considering that individual weather events like rain and wind among others are likely much easier to influence rather than the entirety of the thermal balance of the earth"

This is yet another disconnect that doesn't seem to be understood with deniers. Weather is actually much more complicated than climate. Weather is an initial value problem. It deals with chaos. Climate is a boundary level problem. It's not subject to the instability and convergence problems that weather models do.

Did you study ordinary differential equations in school? If so, you should remember how different those two classes of problems are. It's like comparing an apple to a...brick.

Climate models thus far have been remarkably accurate. They haven't been perfect -- no model is -- but thus far they've been more accurate than most economic models, military models, or really, any models that are used out there in any field. I'm actually quite surprised at how accurate these climate models have been so far.

I think deniers still need to learn the fundamental difference between climate and weather , because here we are today, still discussing someone's backyard weather and how their plants or beehives were destroyed in a cold snap. As if somehow this disproves AGW.

Steve, let's put it this way. CO2 is only about 0.000004% of the atmosphere. Not much, right? Well, if it went down to 0.000002%, we'd be in an ice age and we never would have survived. If it went up to 0.000008%, we'd be in a furnace. It's a sensitive parameter

I hope your monument is going well. People will be laughing at you in about 100 years.

Mark:

You know what, I am sick and tired of you going off on how us "deniers" can't figure out the difference between weather and climate. I would be willing to bet you that all of us, deniers and followers of the GOREACLE, at least those of us subscribing to a site like ACCUWEATHER fully understand the difference. The fact you keep saying makes me think you use it as a crutch to bolster your preconceptions. At no time, did I claim that because my plants died AGW is disproven. What I did say is that the reality does not fit your theory. And more exactly, the proof of your theory as it related to NOAA

Now, I want some of the stuff your smoking because your beloved climate models are complete hogwash. They are not capable of accurately predicting anything of any value. While they are better than ever, they still stink. Why can't you accept that maybe these models are geared to react to certain things more than others producing a hotter environment. Junk in junk out.

"You know what, I am sick and tired of you going off on how us "deniers" can't figure out the difference between weather and climate."

Then stop bringing up singular weather events as proof that AGW isn't occurring. Have you ever seen me bring up a heatwave as proof of GW? Quick answer: No, you haven't.

"I would be willing to bet you that all of us, deniers and followers of the GOREACLE, at least those of us subscribing to a site like ACCUWEATHER fully understand the difference"

No, I really think most deniers don't understand the difference. We're tired of explaining the differences to you.

"Now, I want some of the stuff your smoking because your beloved climate models are complete hogwash"

Can you list all aspects of today's climate that weren't predicted correctly with climate modeling over the past fifteen years? There are some, but not many. And before you talk about "global cooling" back in the 70s, as predictably, I know you will, let me say that climate modeling as we know it today didn't exist back then.

"They are not capable of accurately predicting anything of any value."

Proof? How do you know this when their predictions won't be verified for another thirty years?