How odd - despite the best efforts of bureaucrats, people continue to go to work, eat and breath. Who would have ever thought?

The US is the world's largest food exporter, which accounts for a lot of our GHG emissions. If the UN succeeds in hammering the most productive countries, they will starve millions or billions.

In the mind of an AGW true-believer, being productive is evil, but being poor and starving is good - because you don't consume as many resources or emit as much CO2.

I suspect most starving people would disagree with this viewpoint of ivory tower liberals.

The Kyoto approach of limiting emissions is bound to failure.

Our only hope is to sequester CO2 and the most cost effective means of doing that is iron fertilization of the oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

It is cheap and as a side benefit will stimulate the fishing industry.

Here is another link on Iron Fertilization.

http://www.bbm.me.uk/FeFert/science.htm

Don't believe anybody wants to limit economic growth or suffer a significant carbon tax.

Conservation seems to be the mantra of the Environmental minded crowd. However, realistically, a more progressive approach is needed.

Report says Kyoto should be Dropped

REPLY: Yep! In the toilet!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

If you are really interested in learning about new things look into H.A.A.R.P.. Your tax dollars fund it and I saw a documentary on it that is very eye opening. If you get a second look into it. I'm not saying it is the cause for Global Warming. I am saying you should look into a very interesting topic. Decide for yourself. Check it out.

Thanks to Marc Morano for this Senate blog-

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=dddc4451-802a-23ad-4000-a9b55ed9489a&Issue_id=
it was Newsweek Magazine which in the 1970's proclaimed meteorologists were "almost unanimous" in their view that a coming Ice Age would have negative impacts. It was also Newsweek in 1975 which originated the eerily similar "tipping point" rhetoric of today:

Newsweek wrote on April 28, 1975 about coming ice age fears: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Of course Newsweek essentially retracted their coming ice age article 29 years later in October 2006. In addition, a 1975 National Academy of Sciences report addressed coming ice age fears and in 1971, NASA predicted the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."

I don't think the big concern here is global warming. Regardless of whether that is happenning, we need to reduce or oil consumption and develop alternative energy sources NOW before Peak Oil arrives. If we don't, we'll continue this ecological damage and be completely unprepared when oil prices soar.

Also, Oiznop. Stfu, would ya?

Andrew:
You said: Don't believe anybody wants to limit economic growth or suffer a significant carbon tax.

I truely think you believe in what you say and I respect that. However, can't agree that nobody wants to limit economic growth.
Remember the German environment minister that said Kyoto was designed to criple the economy of the US to allow socialist Europe a chance to compete.
And never forget the chief archatect of Kyoto Maurice Strong who said:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

While there are many well meaning people who just want to do their best for the world, there are also many who have very different goals.
Keep an eye on Al Gore's fortunes as we enter the Carbon Tax erra.
I for one would trust your motives over his any day.

Kyoto was supposed to be a starting point, just a bolt together temporary scaffold put together by amateurs for use in a very complicated development that no one really knew much about.
Rather than a solution that would remain unchanged, Kyoto was designed to be scrapped once a learning curve had been negotiated . The architects hoped its original version would assist in constructing a new economic movement that may one day lead to a sustainable way forward for global trade.

Their hope was misguided.

Bringing Kyoto into being achieved many positive things, the most important being that a network of concerned nations were bought together willing to explore, cooperation and decide upon a new direction built on a firm foundation.

Unfortunately no one found the firm foundation.

Naturally those who rejected all notions of AGW, peak oil, crusades. war for oil, did not and still do not support cutting emissions and so why should we be surprised that co2 emission continued to soar? Kyoto nations were still competing in global markets where the cheapest suppliers won the best contracts. Many developing nations took the worst polluters from the west and increased production in the worst way imaginable where the actions of companies are illegal and hidden from even their owners.

Kyoto was always going to be a bit like getting a group of heavy smokers together at the race track to encourage each other to cut down. The organisers knew that the action will have no success or long term health benefits whilst new smokers were being encouraged to the same bets and take up the same habits.

No one who really understood Kyoto believed it would ever be successful. All those plans to cut emission were nice ideas, especially if you are drunk on sucess, but increasing demand was the goal and growth was really the only objective of all those concerned.

Member nations just exchanged cards and got on with business as usual.

In years to come Kyoto will not be looked upon as a missed chance, it will be proof that there was never really a chance to begin with.

I've always contended that adaptation was the only course of action to take with this natural cyclical warming and this article proves my point. By all means, if money is to be spent, spend it on alternative energy sources and adapting to warmer climate. Don't throw it away on false idols like carbon credits which will only enrich a few and cause hardship for the rest of us.

Given that warming will happen with or without the help of humans, and that stopping our emissions entirely would slow warming by a tiny amount, it seems clear to me that the problem is one of adapting to a warming climate, not making futile attempts to stop it warming.

Compared to the overall mass of the earth, we are specks of dust. The idea that we are capable of changing the earth's climate to such an extent is perhaps one of the most delusional and arrogant things I have ever heard. But those taken in by the hysteria have an almost cartoon perception of the earth, in which the "evil smokestacks of industry" are cartoon exaggerations which cover most of its surface, and humans are towering giants who stomp over entire continents in heavy books, crushing entire rainforests in the process. The reality is nothing like this.

Prosperity is the best hope of coping with natural climate change, which effects poor and helpless communities disproportionately. The only hope those poor people have to become prosperous is not through some fairy-tale socialist wealth "redistribution" but with capitalism and industry. The fact is, to become better equipped to deal with warming that we cannot stop no matter what, we need more industry, not less. The trouble is that this reasoning is lost on those who have no intention of thinking outside the populist box.

Anonymous is correct in that there are some people that do want to limit economic growth. However, they are extremists. So, perhaps what I should have posted is that no respectable people would like to limit growth.

Anyhow, another major problem with Kyoto is that is does not permit credit for CO2 sequestration in the oceans. Not sure the basis for this, but it could be legal since there are not clear owners of the open Oceans beyond the 200 mile border.

So, as a minimum, this aspect of Kyoto needs to be removed which will open what is IMO, the most viable means available. No doubt environmental extremists will fight this, but considering that the area likely to be fertilized are otherwise mostly void of life, I don�t see how there can be that much of a negative impact.

The only way to reduce oil consumption is to either run out of oil or develop new technologies. The latter is a much saner policy and will require large amounts of investment from strong, vibrant economies.

The knee-jerk leftist view imagines that a crippled US and Europe would make the world a better place. Not only would that lead to war and starvation, but would severely limit the world's ability to develop new technology.

Or perhaps "low carbon footprint" third world villagers will lead the technological charge?

Anderw:
Sorry... I missed putting my name in, I am Anonymous.
I have a question for you.
With the projected effect of an 80% cut in CO2 emmissions being barely measurable and the cost being enormous, would you agree that the Cut CO2 approach is not cost effective?
I seems to me that a trillion dollars spent to cut global temperatures a fraction of a degree is a bad investment.
However, that same trillions dollars could fund unimaginable new technologies in efficient power and very likely stop malaria in its tracks.
I am never against making progress and I even agree that SOMETIMES governemts can be effective in driving progress.
I am however very much against wasting time, energy and Money on things that make no difference.
Your suggestion of fertilzing the oceans might actually have some good effect and won't cost much. More study is in order first though to make sure it does not bite us in the ass.

What do you think?

Those who believe Global warming is real, will work to help our earth recover cleaner air, cleaner water & a healthier lifestyle and even if they were wrong we will all have a healthier world for their efforts. Those who do not believe in global warming, will either suffer the consequences of doing nothing - or reap the benefits of the people who make changes to clean up our air, and water. So even if you do not believe in global warming, wouldn't trying to help make our planet cleaner still be better than doing nothing?!!

Kyoto protocol was incepted to further an agenda, a means to an ends which has little to do with the health of the earth and more to do with advertising a consciousness. Fear Consciousness that the sky is falling and all you poor humans are the cause of it. Another mass mind controll psychological operation like any other media hype. The Absurdity of "Carbon Trading" and "carbon Taxes" is just overwhealmingly insulting to any thinking person. Peek Oil is a scam, a lie, it turns out that Petroleum may not always be a fossil fuel, rather a mineral fuel, a product of the earths tectonic pressures where oil is litterally squeezed into existance. The wells in the Gulf of Mexico keep regenerating to the surprize of the oil companies...Abiotic Oil production was developed by the Nazi's in WW2 Germany. Synthetic Oil they called it, from using hydrolic presses squeeze oil from stone. Fossil bearing coal is more aptly called a fossil fuel. So fuel supply is less a problem than the social control machinery the corporations apply to the human herd. There are all kinds of ways to live with minimal pollution. We are simply driven like lemming not to live naturally and free. Industrial based economic slavery is our sad condition. All bad advertising, solutions are here, always have been, it is consciousness than needs to evolve and behavior that needs to change.

carbon sequestration ???????????
Those who propose humans removing CO2 from the atmosphere should take a course in biology...
and be more concerned about the concentration of oxygen than CO2....
CO2 was the dominant gas when the earth was formed and was so for at least an eon. Without fuel for photosynthesis, humans will become the next species to become extinct.
Water is the dominant greenhouse gas and the only molecule in the environment that exists in all three phases at the typical temperatures extremes (ca.-150 to +120). The enthaphy change from gas to liquid is something not possible with CO2 and is ca. 500x greater because of hydrogen bonding. Regardless, anthropogenic contributions still pale in comparison with natural ones, both with CO2 and H20. Do the math!

Simon,

Everyone wants to cut emissions. Don't be so arrogant or foolish to believe that you stand on high moral ground. The disagreement is about the effectiveness and danger of instituting half-cocked Draconian legislation. Many people as they become adults learn to recognize that understanding human nature and needs is the key to effective action. Al Gore understands this as he laughs all the way to the Stockholm bank.

"How dare they not let me play President?"

"Need a massive spending increase on clean energy technology and devote as much money to this challenge as they currently spend on military research"

No surprise that scientists want to have an unlimited supply of money. What is surprising is how uncritical we are of conflict of interest, blindly assuming that "climate scientists" are somehow morally superior to the rest of us.

Oleg

Everyone wants to cut emissions????

High moral ground has nothing to do with anything. I have no choice but to observe, participate or not, the picture will remain unchanged.

No one wants to cut emissions at the cost of economic growth, which is the problem.

Pre 1990 emissions are the targets we focus on today, and tomorrow the problem will be much greater.6.7 billion of us contribute today, and in a few years there will be 7 billion of us fighting over oil, and in a couple of decades 9 billion people using methane hydrates as a primary source of fuel and they too will want to cut emissions as well.

We should be focusing on the cause of AGW instead of just the symptom. Restricting economic growth and restoring a natural balance is the only way to counter global warming.

Biofuels 'crime against humanity'

A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm

amazing how blindly AGW'rs continue to follow the cult line with hairbrain ideas to save the world in the face of real science rebuttal saying AGW has no legs to stand on...lets see, antarctic ice at new record...arctic ice low the result of unusual winds...thermometers proven to be a joke...tree ring science a joke...calculation of temperature record proven to be a joke...judge spanking the al gore movie as a joke...little kids books about global warming had to admit they lied...the International Panel on Climate Conspiracy written by politicians caught lying about scientific consensus...a dismal hurricane season even though its supposed to be getting worse and now the kyoto joke is being abandoned for no doubt another bird brain convention on how to lie differently because the first went nowhere...all the while, the airwaves are filled that california is burning up because of co2 when the real cause was failed underbrush policy lawsuited into effect by guess who?, the same type of cultists...i expect the screaming to get louder and louder as the AGW lie continues to unravel...

Also, Oiznop. Stfu, would ya?

REPLY: Um excuse me, but I don't speak in acronyms or ebonics or any other language that is taught in the government funded school systems other than english (that is if that is still taught). Could you please translate? Or is it too obscene that Brett can't post it??

Thanks for that Patrick.

Cut it any way you like and you�ll still get another problem. There is no solution,except the one being ignored.

biofuels are not even a low emission fuels, but as they are still an alternative fuel they will have an even bigger role to play as oil supplies run dry.

However with Alaskan Arctic and Antarctic regions largely untapped, biofuel will only be supplemental rather than a replacement because of which its value will guide farmers while they chose the best options to make a seasonal buck.
Food prices will go through the roof as droughts worsen or crops are flooded, demand for food will always be higher than fuel. Nevertheless farmers in the third world will switch to any cash crops or swap from growing tobacco tomorrow. In our heavily subsidized worlds farmers will just sell to the highest bidder and the famine relief will have to buy less or will have less to buy�. so yes people will starve, but that�s just normal.

if it was possible to cut emissions in a way that no one will like, at the source, bringing about forced economic hardships, and actually tackling energy production and the pollution head on . The need for an alternative source of fuel is no longer met with increasing demand and emissions will decrease fairly rapidly.

The benevolent acts of humanitarian intervention in the Middle East will no longer need invention as we in the global community prepared for life without oil and design a society that must live within the rules of nature.

The wealthy will hate the idea and shout and scream at the thought of personal sacrifice, but if co2 emissions are not absorbed their wealth will be gone anyway as will our wonderful society, destroyed by the 80% who will be the first to suffer the hardest hit and the least represented .

We will not submit to global warming without a few more battles, but we will submit, it would be nice to be prepared for such a destiny...but we are not even planning for peak oil
.

“Restricting economic growth and restoring a natural balance is the only way to counter global warming.”

That statement belongs in a beauty contest and ranks right up there with ever popular “World Peace” wish! It is a beautiful thought but completely sophomoric and na�ve.
That statement of “natural balance” opens a Pandora’s box full of problems and moral dilemmas best left unopened.
Just what is and who will determine what the “natural balance” is? Whose perspective will determine the social and political realities of your new world order? Who gets to pick what economies are restricted and by how much? Are we going to use whose religious, social, economic criteria or just yours? Whose rights to life and liberty will you impede in this quest for social justice?
Your balance would undoubtedly require a massive reduction of the human presence on this planet. Just who is going to determine who becomes the disposable?
I believe a few nations tried to mandate their version of a “natural Order” in the 30’s and 40’s. The Japanese call it their “Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” and the Germans called it “Lebensraum”. In the Americas we learned to recognize it as fascism, the "Rape of Nanking", turning Korea into a massive brothel, death camps, genocide, and slave labor…. better known as World War II. I'd be a bit careful about looking at that model as an idea of merit.
The reference I made happened before most AGW zealots were alive. That is a problem because they have no frame of reference or understanding of the suffering caused by blindly following fanatical beliefs without question.
If you fail to learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. Read, learn and question before you jump to that seductive Syrens call to action without thought.

So maybe we ought to begin thinking in a rational manner and look at the issue with real science instead of passion. Then we need to look for real and practical ideas and solutions before offering platitudes whose path might reveal a much darker side of the AGW agenda.

Oiznop: I'll translate it. stfu means shut the (four letter f word) up. You're right it was obscene and hopefully Brett deletes that "intelligent" persons post. In fact I hope Brett is able to block their IP address so they can't post any longer from that computer.

Ok, first off, I would like to publically thank Someone for the witty retort to OIZNOP. Without these fine intellectual statements, we might forget how silly some of the AGW ilk can be. The post by Someone can be seen as a reminder of who may debate this topic and who may not.

I think the AGW crowd is becoming desperate since the gist of the article is to scrap Kyoto in favor of even more radical concepts. Did anyone also catch the REAL key to the followers of the Gore, spend as much money on research and clean energy as is spent on the military. I find that an interesting and telling comparison.

Ted you make it sound as if there is some control in this disaster.
Its like the weather mate, we can predict it but we cannot control it.
There are influential powers that are protecting their own interests right now, but no one is actually in charge of weather and climates and no one gets to decide the final outcome anyway.
The Big fears are that terrorist are going to take over at any moment, or is it that socialists are going to share their poverty? Democrats or Aliens, blacks. Japanese or other Asians, Al Gore the United Nations you name it there is a fear for every occasion, one is bound to be right. Oh I forgot AGW will king hit the lot.
My fear is that religious groups will survive and inherit whats left of the world because they have strong communities and a mission and a teaching that really hasn�t changed that much since being plagiarized from pagan myth and legend.
Nevertheless, what will be, will be and is completely out of our control, predictable none the less, based on what we have already seen.
What has there been? 7 years of AGW being taken seriously, since the major powers recognized and admitted problems threats and challenges aside from weaker human targets, some signed Kyoto and others promised to do something about it.
What have we seen? The war, that�s a dead give away, who decides who should die? You ask, I guess the guy behind the biggest gun.
Also R&D for Alternative extra energy, investment into Methane recovery and land grabs at the poles to secure oil reserves while battles and deals secure all other known reserves.
In the latter stages of AGW, those behind the walled sanctuaries will survive longer and face the threats of AGW a great deal better than those unprepared, but they will be a privileged few.
Its more than likely that these survivors will be practical people, good with their hands and hard working. The victims will be those who are a surplus, people that cannot adapt or cope without a consumer society to carry them.
I guess that means that anyone who cannot contribute food shelter youth or safety will not survive in the new world order. Which is something we can let nature decide.
I would like to see that knowledge survives, in a practical way. I�m not sure how its possible, but I would like all knowledge safely stored for at least a thousand years, which might mean that future generations might be spared from making the same mistakes again

"Did anyone also catch the REAL key to the followers of the Gore, spend as much money on research and clean energy as is spent on the military."

Darren, the quote says military research. Not military as a whole.

Though I think most of us believe our tax dollars are better-spent on other priorities rather than Operation Iraqi Failure, I don't think that's what Prins and Raynor meant.

Simon;
Seriously man. Go talk to somone. Your dispare is begining to scare me.
Are you really that dishartened?
I am a pesamist and I can't imagine things getting that bad.
Cheer up! We have been through this whole thing four times now. It is not the end.

Acutally Brett...do not post my last submission about SM....As I re-read the thread, I see that SM was mearly translating for me and was not the original poster of the stfu post. I am not awake yet...sorry....please again, do not post my last submission...thanks

Oiz

P.S. I always intend to mention this but I always forget. I hear you on KDKA all the time. Sounding good, dude.
Reply: Thanks Oiz, I doubt that will be the case today though.

Oiznop:

After I submitted the post I hoped you didn't take it wrong. I was in no way telling you what Someone did. I'm glad you understood my post.

BTW send that cool weather to Minnesota. I'll take it any day.

Actually I meant to say military research not just the military. Still a quite telling comment from them as AGWers.

Mark:

Will just let your comment on OIF go since that is beyond the intent of this blog.

Gary,

You believe the threat is nothing to be concerned about and we should all support the achievements of consumerism.
and may we be all truely thankful.

Over the last thirty years deaths on the road have been a great concern and all nations have spent billions to reduce the annual rate of death and injury.
The efforts to save lives on the roads have been successful, deaths which would have occurred 20 years ago now result in injury while some permanent disabilities can now be treated successfully.

Strangely Advances in car safety and road design have combined to save lives, however sadly the death tolls have continued to increase because there are more cars and more people using them.
AGW will go the same way, co2 emissions will be cut but globally co2 emissions will increase.

We are now concerned about the AGW effects we have already seen. Forests are now being lost to storms droughts and wildfires, oceans and land are not absorbing as much co2 while human activity increases emissions while natural co2 emissions have increased .

I don�t think people are unconcerned, I really believe they think they can solve the problem through lip service and lip-syncing alone. That�s the scary bit. The same type of people whose efforts caused the problem are now in charge of solving it? Frightening,

these populations are already dependant on a growing dependency on ever increasing levels of consumption, and they intend to reduce the environmental impact by pouring any surplus cash that can be generated by burning FossilF into R&D that can deliver more energy to sustain the wasteful activity.

Seriously Gary
We are talking about a species who have no control over what they eat, which has led to an obesity epidemic in all wealthy nations and we now expected these same populations to develop a solutions caused by greed and excess?

No your right Gary, nothing to worry about, they will develop a pill that will solve all the problems, maybe I should take some medicine as well, What are you on?

After I submitted the post I hoped you didn't take it wrong. I was in no way telling you what Someone did. I'm glad you understood my post.

BTW send that cool weather to Minnesota. I'll take it any day.

REPLY: SM I did at first, and confused you for the initial stfu instigator but then I went back and realized that you were not and were just explaining, which is why had Brett stop my response. No harm done. Like I said, didn't have that first jolt of octane at that point....

Oiz

P.S. You can keep the cool wx, bro....I require (but ain't gonna get) (global) warmth!!!!.......:-DDDD....

Simon;
Good to see you back and in fighting spirit.
I was just a bit worried about your seemingly depressed state of mind. Will now mind my own business!

Drugs? No, I just don't read the signs the way you do. I don't see the disasterous warming.(.6C?) I don't see any really unusual natural disasters. (dust bowel 30s) I don't see anything but some natural warming coming out of the LIA.
I do see a lot of people and governments rubbing their hands together over how to take advantage of the windfall fears generated by the AGW scam.
I see Al Gore getting indecently rich and laughing at all the suckers as we scramble to fork over money to him.
I see Europe desperately trying to convince the US to cripple its economy so they can compete.
I see a scientific community rolling in funding like they have never seen before and not terrably willing to see it end.

just a few observations....

Gary.

What is the truth?
Facts are facts, global warming has accelerated in recent years, co2 trapped in the atmosphere has increased, climates have changed, Ice has melted, ancient forest have been lost to winds and fires, crop failures have emerged in bread basket regions, land and oceans no longer absorb as much co2 and the energy that makes severe weather is getting more powerful.

This AGW truth has been argued for decades as more deniers switch camps becoming sceptical until finally accepting that there is no longer any reasonable doubt left, adverse weather is obviously getting more frequent and to argue is just getting embarassing.

However AGW belief does not automatically arrive with a solution or make it easy to accept that our whole way of life is to change, whether we act now or bury our heads in the sand.

Belief in this case comes with an economic problem which for most is unacceptable; the reality most grapple with is that we have already spent the inheritance in last half of the 20th century having the consumirism economic boom and all we have to show for it is AGW and peak oil.

This thought or fear is what keeps sceptics looking for any slight excuse to ignore the issue; I guess it hides a deep seated shame and the hopeless lack of resorces to buy our way toward prosperity and a peaceful future.

There are still a few unreasonable people in positions of leadership who can�t accept that AGW represents a highly profitable way to make a living, they think wealth derived from accessible natural sources is too available and therefore cannot be controlled by the few established powers.

Instead of the alternative carbon neutral energy represents, it actually represents competition taking away profits from centrally controlled energy producers and threatening the future of all traditional markets. Remember that traditional markets support traditional leaders and then you begin to realise that AGW actually threatens those who derive their wealth from fossil fuels. Natrually these powers want nothing to change that might immediately dilute their strength
.
When solar power first started to appear, the government made it impossible for owners to sell power or transfer credits they had made on their own roofs, this made it impossible to make a profit or a business in solar power generation even though ordinary people could make money from electricity they produced, the interests of corporations were protected. I doubt it if anything has changed.
Oh BTW this was made law in most countries, any surplus power generated by roof top cells becomes the property of a power company, the owner of the cells just pays a smaller bill.

Ordinary people forget that AGW inspired initiatives must represent an equal or more profitable way to do business in nations that rely on fossil fuels or this carbon neutral replacement business plan will never be adopted.

Presumably you have compared AGW research with all the funds available that develop new profitable ways to feed consumerism. I think you will find that scientists getting AGW funds are still underpaid compared with those who gain the money available to develop new machines that cause global warming

Simon;
Respectrully, I think you (and most AGW posters) have missed the real point.
VERY FEW would argue that the planet has not warmed. Few would argue that it may be a problem.
Almost nobody would argue that renewable energy and sustainable business practices are not good.
The Point is......
Why has it gotten warmer?
If we get that question wrong, we will spend our way into oblivian and accomplish nothing.
Kind of like Kyoto.
Skeptics want to know what the problem is before blowing the budget on fixes that don't help.
If you or anyone can show indisputable evidence that people are the problem, then fine, lets get socialist.
Otherwise, go back to the lab and get better answers.
We have a lot of global problems that need attention. Most of them are well defined and the solutions are obvious. None of them will get fixed as long as we are preoccupied with AGW.
My fear is that we will ignore real solutions to concreat problems while chasing maybe's and might be's.
So far AGW is still just a guess.
Make it real and we will all get on board.
Cheers Simon....

AGW is real enough.
We have witnessed an acceleration in our lives, which has by now developed a history, global warming has been confirmed and the- why -has already been answered.
Just because you do not like the answer does not mean all of us will ignore it and wait for something better to come along.
I do not think that human activity is keeping the momentum going, it does not help, but tipping points have been passed so I think global warming is a bit more natural these days than it was a few years ago. It will be like switching off the engine at the top of a hill and rolling into the valley, even if we stopped industrial activity.

The natural balance has been disturbed, we cannot reset the clock. Where do they think they will get new carbon sinks? How are we going to cool the oceans?
The answer is we will not.

I wonder how they think they can generate the extra funds required to pay the proposed AGW fixes, taxes carbon ofsets etc, without burning more fossil fuels to stimulate the economy so that the required surplus can be obtained to cover the extra expense.

That�s a bit hard to understand, so its no wonder they have not realised how stupid the current batch of knee jerk reactions are.

Tell me if I�m wrong, but it is my belief that all economic activity relies on the exchange of energy. Even a teacher�s salary depends on the economic activity of the wider community whose incomes largely depend on burning fossil fuels; therefore it must be true to say that every dollar made, causes some co2 emissions. Therefore the more money you make the more emissions you generate or have been generated to create your pay cheque.

I wonder how a petrol pump attendant can become carbon neutral, should he spend his pay on tree�s, that�s a little extreme, but perhaps we shall see solar cells and windmills on top of gas stations in the future , even though it will not make the service slightly carbon neutral.

I agree with you Gary, the funds spent on trying to avert global warming would be wasted and the attempt would be a half arsed farce because the very funds spent to reduce emission would cause even higher levels of co2.

Simon;
On many levels we agree.
The earth has warmed a bit.
It may have some bad effects in some places.
Spending enough money to cripple the industrialized world on CO2 cutting will not fix anything.
Spending money on sustainable living is good no matter what.
Spending money clean energy development is good.

So here is the crux issue causing debate.
since all the GW related stuff posted here would happen anyway no matter what cused it, the only relevant question is:
Is man made CO2 really the problem?

If it is not, we will destroy our ability to do much of anyting in future by trying to fix somthing that aint broke.
Standard trouble shooting demands that we first define the problem.
We have not completed that task yet.
Cheers Simon

Spending enough money to cripple the industrialized world on CO2 cutting will not fix anything.
_____________________________________________________________________
reply
This is fear mongering; there is no risk of this. Every effort is being made to develop an alternative fuel long before oil shortages force economies into recession. The propaganda says the effort is being made to avert GW, but in truth its being done to ensure business continues as usual. Base loads will still be reliant on coal burning and agriculture will still be dependant on oil.
Any introduced carbon taxes will benefit large businesses who will be able to incorporate the extra costs while smaller businesses will be swallowed up but business will carry on.
___________________________________________________________
Spending money on sustainable living is good no matter what.
__________________________________________________
reply
Sustainable living will require increased defence spending and the resettlement funds available for the evacuation of coastal cities. However the likely plan will be to delay taking AGW seriously while spending billions on sea defenses to protect high value realestate. this will only hold back flood waters when a storm surge meets swollen rivers swamping coastal populations which will swallow up a nations emergency relief funds after only a few repeats of AGW disasters.
Look at New Orleans, we have the resources and technology we can rebuid it, but we cannot get the insurance.
___________________________________________________________________
Spending money on clean energy development is good.
--------------------------------------------------
Reply
There is no such thing,

Alternative energy represent another source of energy. A country gets wealther by using as much energy as they can get. All wealthy nations have become rich by using as much energy as they can get.
The nations with a surplus of resources sells the surplus to make more money and gets richer.

Who says alternative energy will cut pollution, save emissions and lead to cleaner air.?

When we discovered coal, did we cut less wood?
It seems to me that If we have acess to more energy we will just use more energy and become as rich as we can be.
Whose going to stop us?

-----------------------------------------------
Since all the GW related stuff posted here would happen anyway no matter what caused it, the only relevant question is:
Is man made CO2 really the problem?
------------------------------------------------
Reply
Not any more.

The temperature has risen; an overall global increase of 1+ degree doesn�t sound much but the average hides regional increases which have increased by as much as 9 degrees in some places. The arctic has risen by 7 degrees in a few decades, Australia by 4, opposite ends of the earth warming at breakneck speeds.

This extreme increase has happened in a very short space of time and has begun to trigger natural feed backs which have compounded the problem.

So will it help is the cancer ridden smoker quits the cigarettes today? I doubt it
but his relative may want to hide his cigarettes to delay the inevitable, his doctor a medical scientist will recommend cold turkey, but I would offer him a smoke, light it myself and join him, while we talk about his funeral plans, I think cremation is still about the most cost effective.

Will he buy the off set package? and take the carbon nuetral package, I doubt that he will care.
------------------------------------------------

If it is not, we will destroy our ability to do much of anything in future by trying to fix something that isn�t broke.
Standard trouble shooting demands that we first define the problem.
-------------------------------------------------
reply

We are not broke, Gary. Far from it. We can afford to spend the profits from a
Nations that makes 14 trillion dollars a year on a war to secure Middle Eastern oil.
God knows America will go broke if the oil is lost to a civil war which is poised to spread through-out Asia. So we must keep on fighting or the planets economy will be in jeopardy.

invaded nations are not cooperating and the cost of forcing them to comply with the occupation is threatening very future global economic development, not Al gore or the UN.

The climate isn�t broke either. Its just changed quicker than we can adapt. Grain belts are now caught in arid regions where droughts will never end. Good rainfalls fall on coastlines or fills ocean catchments which will force millions to go thirsty or spend their money on technology to make drinking water.

Changing climates will increase demand for new land to grow food. The heat or cold will increase energy costs, and demand more resources for those who must relocate. Coastal defences will demand more concrete.
There will be a period of increased demand for resources and energy as AGW intensifies, just as we are hearing that plans are being made to cut emissions.

We cannot have both, needs will decide and so we know what will happen.