"President Bush's play is more of a bottom-up approach for working on reducing greenhouse gas emissions while the UN process is a top-down strategy."

Laura, the above assessment is credulous to the point of naivete. (Among other points I could make, if Bush is a big believer in bottom-up action why is he trying to block the efforts of California and other states?) Bush knows his successor will negotiate a strong treaty unless a weak one is put in place now. The Europeans are of course well aware of that, and hopefully will not sacrifice the long-term good for the short-term appearance of progress.

The problem with the European approach to emissions control is it just does not include the developing countries. With China about to become the world's largest emitter, the plan is a non-starter. Furthermore, Europe liked the plan because it put them in control, not the US or the developing world. Politics and any redistribution of world wealth simply does not belong in an emissions cap plan. The developing countries must be including or it won't work, nor do we want one region's industries favored over another's.

Many people have been very angry at Bush for not moving this issue forward before this. However we should not embrace the deeply flawed European plan out of this frustration. While I applaud Bush for resisting Kyoto, I hope he moves ahead quickly with this problem.

The belief of the German chancellor and the EU that we can "legislate the climate" is a good indication of just how crazy AGW has made people.

It may be possible to enact legislation which calls for countries to reduce CO2 output by 50% by 2050 - (though probably impossible to reach that target.) But it is completely irrational to try to legislate the climate. Climate is made up of a vast number of variables, and assuming that CO2 - which comprises only .03% of the atmosphere - is the only factor influencing the climate, is nothing more than political and scientific lunacy.

Given that more than 97% of CO2 emissions come from natural sources, the goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 50% is also ridiculous.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Climate is made up of a vast number of variables, and assuming that CO2 - which comprises only .03% of the atmosphere - is the only factor influencing the climate, is nothing more than political and scientific lunacy.

REPLY: Amen, brother! And that's NOT coming from the church of Hannity and Limbaugh, like some on here believe. That's coming from the church of comman sense!

NOT GUILTY!

"Given that more than 97% of CO2 emissions come from natural sources, the goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 50% is also ridiculous."

Mankind is responsible for nearly 100% of the rise in CO2 concentrations over the past 150 years. Those emissions that come from natural sources are re-absorbed, Patrick. Oceans absorb the CO2 they emit. Same thing with plants. Humans are the one entity which emits, but doesn't absorb, CO2.

Another nice try at trying to blur the issue, though. Luckily we have people here who present facts instead of 'swindled' garbage.

The Canadian PM and American Pres. should have nipped this nonesense in the bud years ago and cut off all global warming funding. We wouldn't be in this mess right now of trying to negotiate solutions to a problem that doesn't exist, and all that money could have gone toward real problems facing the world today. I say get out of the U.N. and kick the U.N. out of America. Let them set up shop in the E.U. where they'll be right at home.

Mankind is responsible for nearly 100% of the rise in CO2 concentrations over the past 150 years. Those emissions that come from natural sources are re-absorbed, Patrick. Oceans absorb the CO2 they emit. Same thing with plants. Humans are the one entity which emits, but doesn't absorb, CO2.

REPLY: Ok, that's it, I need to know now. Where are you getting this garbage? How about providing a (non-political, non partisan) link that proves this. Honestly, Mark, you guys are the limit!

"Ok, that's it, I need to know now. Where are you getting this garbage? How about providing a (non-political, non partisan) link that proves this. Honestly, Mark, you guys are the limit!"

The problem with the anti-environment crowd is that any link that isn't Drudge, Faux News, or JunkScience.com is considered to be the evil 'Mainstream Media'. You guys even give it a moniker, MSM.

I've already explained this to plish and Patrick. I believe Laura has as well. The CO2 that is naturally emitted by oceans, plants, etc. are reabsorbed by those same entities, resulting in a net gain of zero to Earth's carbon system. Humans are the one new kink in the system which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, but doesn't reabsorb it, which is why you see CO2 levels rise every single year (it's now up to 387 ppm as of April 2007).

I could provide many links but you, being a denier, will not bother to read them.

Mark:

Please just put the AGW mantra off to the side for a minute and simply admit to all of us that your real issue here is not CO2 emissions and warming but rather human overpopulation and socioeconomic equality. Admitting is the first step to resolution I've been told.

While you point out that you have many links proving your ideas (of course we all know that a link is as good as fact), I like how you cut down the "Deniers". The problem is, that after getting taken to task by you and BT for not looking at your info, I started reading through your "proofs". I found nearly all of them to have a discernible agenda in their respective discussions or were so full of data sets as to be unintelligible unless you are intimately familiar with the data.

That is the primary difference between the AGW crowd and us "deniers", they have an agenda, we don't.

I could provide many links but you, being a denier, will not bother to read them.

REPLY: Not only will I read them, but I will find out who these people are that are commenting and I will do a little reasearch into their backgounds as well. Especially their political backgrounds, and ties to groups like Greenpeace. Like your boy Dr. Hansen, who claims to be an Independent, but conveniently donated a considerable amount of money to a certain Senator from Massachusettes Presidential campaign in 2004. Uh huh, yeah right, no agendas there. Mark, you guys are not fooling anyone. Like Darren said, you and your ilk (Guiltline Tom, Susan A, etc.) have a beef with humanity as a whole, but have that typical elitest attitude that we have to march in goose step to your montra. And your gripes are especially geared toward the USA and it's prosperity. Again, you are NOT fooling anyone.

The Denier Strikes Again!

I see that Darren and Oiznop didn't refute what I just said about the fallacy they spread about humans "only emitting 3% of the world's CO2 emissions."

Yes, Darren & Oiz, I have an agenda. I'm just a Communist who is trying to undermine capitalism and turn the U.S. into a third world country. Yup, that's it. It's the same old tired card you guys play.

The debate about AGW is over amongst most policy makers, scientists and, yes, even a growing number of corporations. You guys remind me of the same people who argued that tobacco wasn't harmful during the 60s. Or those guys that fought environmental regulations tooth-and-nail during the 80s; and yet, enjoy cleaner air & water today thanks to those regulations they fought against.

The rest of us who choose not to stick our head in the sands are debating solutions.

mark:

Thanks for admitting it finally. LOL

Don't include me with those who say that humans only emit 3% of the CO2 out there. I have no idea how much humans expel into the atmosphere. My actual point is that anyone, including all of the "consensus" or "experts", or whomever, who say they know how much is emitted, is probably just estimating in some manner that benfits their respective ideas. To then spout those estimates merely makes it a part of the problem. Unlike the majority of the world's population, I do know how governmental estimates are produced and they are not at all accurate by any definition of the word. I am also thoroughly convinced that even fewer people have any idea of how big the Earth really is. At least relative to us humans.

I love how every post has the statement that the "debate" is over. Why are you so concerned that the debate be over? Could it be that if debate continues, it will be realized that the sole purpose of the AGW hysteria is not really science based? Nah, I didn't think so.

No need to comment further. Thank you Darren, for saving me the trouble, as I am beginning to reach my tipping point with these alarmists. Let's see those links, Mark. I am waiting. Can't wait to investigate those "scientists" that you trust so much. ;-D...

Happy Weekend!

From your friend, the Denier!
(did I mention, NOT GUILTY???)....

97% of co2 is produced by nature. Is that a fact?
This means that nature will absorb its own 97% leaving our 3% extra to accumulate in the atmosphere.
I get about the same interest in my savings account at the bank, But unfortunately I don�t have billions invested.
I guess if I had 3% per year saving over more than a century of putting billions away it would represent a massive inheritance for someone.