McCain annoys conservatives with Global warming claims.
May 14th, 2008 by DavidAnderson
How I wish Newt Gingrich ran for President. Let me have my fantasy for another minute. The Democrats have just walked into a trap. They want President Bush to stop putting 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the strategic reserve to save a nickle to a quarter a gallon on gas, yet they have blocked production of a million barrels a day from the Arctic saying it would have no impact. That would be like Saudi Arabia increasing its oil by 50%. It would be like adding another Iraq and Nigeria to the oil supply. The U. S. has enough reserves off shore and in Alaska to add about 4 of the top ten oil producing countries. If all of those went off line, what would the price be? Only an idiot would believe that 70K would affect the price and 2 million barrels wouldn’t. Democrat policies have damaged Americans to no end. They blocked Bush. They stabbed us in back. About 3/4 of Americans want us to expand drilling for oil. It takes years to do. So we better start.
You would think this would be the perfect foil for a Republican wanting to avoid getting blamed for high gas prices. The public record shows roll call after roll call on this issue which could be used against any Democrat (Christine-hint). Yet, there is some disconnect. Our candidate for President would rather raise energy costs only a little less than the Democrats.
Senator McCain has really annoyed me by calling those who reject the Climate Change hoax as on the extreme and saying the global warming debate is over. This is from a guy who is a minority candidate within his party. He is not in a position to make such statements. He may be the party’s candidate, but he is not the party. I do not take issue with Senator McCain’s beliefs on climate change. The majority of Americans agree with him. I do take issue with his bashing of “Republicans” instead of merely pointing to his own record as a different kind of Republican.
I do not believe that climate change is something to be feared nor primarily caused by man. The earth has been much warmer in the last 1000 years. Everyday, the global climate change models which rely on CO2 are being shown to be faulty, while the ones resting more on solar activity are tracking the real world. The debate should be over and the alarmists should be ashamed.
I refrained from saying anything, but i managed to catch a few minutes of Rush during lunch and see a bit of Glen Beck and Hannity and Colmes. I have also read a few reactions. No one else has. This may get worse than immigration. I see that I am not alone at being offended. (I will still vote for him on other issues– not to mention that his plan is a lot better for the economy and moves us toward energy independence.) I think that Bob Barr may have just become a factor. Republicans are becoming dispirited as shown by the loss of house seats in both Louisiana and Mississippi. They were won by Bush with around 60% of the vote. Oddly enough, if Bob Barr gets significant votes, he may save the GOP from getting wiped out in Congress. He won’t pull votes from Senator McCain unless McCain picks a Crist for VP. He will get votes from people who would have stayed home. Once out, they will vote for Congress and down the list along with the McCain voters. Frank, Ann Coulter, Bob Novak, and company have someone to vote for now.
Taking an Al Gore light position on global climate change will not doom Senator McCain, his opponents on the Democrat side hold the same position. What is devastating is that Republicans will continue to get killed in fundraising and will lose voters concerned about the economy. It was a ready made issue. Democrats have no realistic energy policy and their plans would drive millions of jobs to India and China while shooting up energy costs.
Newt Gingrich has the perfect model. See his American Solutions platform. It understands that we need to develop the energy of the future and drill today. 3/4 of Americans agree. Americans aren’t stupid.
Bob Barr is polling 3% before most people have even heard of him. I could see him gaining the Ron Paul vote and dispirited conservatives or I could see him fade away. Pat Buchanan was a significant factor in 2000, but by the convention President Bush had neutralized him.
I think that this is the reason Gov. Mike Huckabee is now said to be at the top of the McCain VP list. McCain is starting to have trouble with the solid south. He goes down in flames without it. He needs someone to keep the South, southern Ohio, WV, Arkansas and the like while he goes out and gets the independent voter. It may be his best call. Of course, J. C. Watts could give him the same strength without the anxiety from the Club for Growth. Congressman Watts could reassure conservatives while fitting in with McCain’s maverick image to independent voters. If Obama has the nomination taken from him, then Watts could be an in road into his voters. If Obama gets the nomination, Watts can speak to the Clinton voters and independents who would be tempted to make history, but are uncomfortable with Senator Obama.
Senator McCain may win this November, but it would be with the most unlikely coalition since Roosevelt, Evangelicals, environmentalists, defense hawks, veterans, fiscal hawks, Hispanics, and Independents. The GOP faithful may have their best candidate for this moment in history. It may also be good for antacid sales from all of the conservatives with queasy stomachs, unless the man starts to understand the meaning of TEAM. Still winning is better than losing when both the Nation’s security and Supreme Court are at stake.
“The earth has been much warmer in the last 1000 years.”
Unprovable. We haven’t been taking temperature measurements that widely that long.
I discovered your homepage by coincidence.
Very interesting posts and well written.
I will put your site on my blogroll.
I must say this is a great article i enjoyed reading it keep the good work
Well, when McCain was asked about offshore drilling and ANWR, his answer was that states’ rights should trump other concerns. Okay, that’s pandering to Florida voters who are afraid that offshore drilling would threaten the beaches and the tourist trade, but the folks in Alaska want drilling there, for the jobs and revenue that it would bring.
I’m still up in the air about the SPR issue, though. Fiscally, it makes sense to temporarily pause filling it with $128 per barrel oil, and only resume when the price drops again. I’m totally against putting it back on the market, though, since with refinery capacity nearly maxed out it wouldn’t make any difference at the pump. I’m not positive, but don’t we fill the SPR with domestically produced oil in the form of royalties paid to the federal govt.?
David, you should have headlined your post “McCain annoys far right conservatives . . . “. I’m sure a lot of regular conservatives are fans of science. Hoax is a pretty closed minded way of describing what, at best, is considered to be a scientific uncertainty. I am not a true believer except for the fact that I do understand that industry is blowing more crap into the atmosphere than ever before. What that does to the Earth is not crystal clear, but I am glad we are making a science out of it. I remember back in the day being very skeptical about the need for catalytic converters on automobiles. Then, after the air began to clear, I realized I was a political partisan, not a scientist. Don’t let that happen to you. I have a feeling it’s the people who are pushing global warming that you are mainly against, not so much the concept itself.
McSame is pandering.
Mr. “I hate gooks” is not holding on to the mainstream young crowd.
Remember, Brian that John McCain is one of the people who helped reconcile the U. S. and Viet Nam. If he ever said that quote, he would have a right to those feelings. Go through what he went through for 5 years and then criticize him for having to take a journey to forgiveness.
I do agree with you on the McSame charge. He is too much like President Bush on abridging civil liberties and too much like the Democrats on abridging economic ones. He sounds perfect for the time, unfortunately. We need to educate Americans on the moral superiority of liberty because both parties are broken.
That is not just a John McCain problem.
Look, you can’t prove the temperature from 1000 years ago on a given day, but you can understand the climate. Here is some proof.
OUTSIDE THE BOX Plus Ça (Climate) ChangeThe Earth was warming before global warming was cool.BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m.
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country–grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate–so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm–by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars’s southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that “the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming.”
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century’s warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to “Climate Change and Its Impacts,” a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and “average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s.” British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet “grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year,” and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.
Earlier this month the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won’t be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.
The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970–from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.
The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 “hockey stick” graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.
Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that “in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka’s malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths” in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring,” invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded “a ban, not just a curb,” on the use of DDT “even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control.” International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.
As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings’ experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth. Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Well, holy crap, if St. Pete DuPont says it then it must be true!
I’m gonna go out and buy me a Canyonero this evening. Climate change schmimate change.
David, are you really saying that the presence of man and all of the carbon burning has no effect?
No, everything figures into the equation, but even some people on the U. N. climate change panel believe that we are not the primary cause. The computer models are being tested in the real world for over 15 years now. The solar ones track and the CO2 ones don’t. That is not conclusive. Climate is very complicated.
What seems to sure is that the extreme models are nonoperative. There is no crisis. I am all for reducing CO2 emissions because that would mean we are relying less on fossil fuels. I do have a problem with unnecessary actions which will destroy lives.
Good, then I think you will agree people concerned about the issue are not victims of a hoax.
“The earth has been much warmer in the last 1000 years.”
Unprovable. We haven’t been taking temperature measurements that widely that long. - Post #1.
Thanks to Dave Anderson, we know that there are more methods available other than taking temperature measurements for the last 1000 years. Funny how the abuse of language always tries to trumph science and mathematics. Not funny how language artists try to influence those less educated by deception.
I am not saying that Poster #1 is trying to deceive other readers, just that Poster #1 needs to develop a better appreciation for the sciences. Some statistics, probability, math and logic would help his credibility immensely.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Informed opinions are so much better. Otherwise there are people who believe that the moon is made of cheese, that the earth is flat, and that man is the primary culprit in global warming.
The Danger is in creating unnecessary and restrictive rules on society and industry, so that ’someone’ can abuse political advantage and control. Or sell an unnecessary product. Or sway an election.
Great post.
In my view, the Pete DuPont statement that David posted in #8 is little more than a sequence of anecdotal information which cannot be tied together to form a reasonable scientific conclusion about global warming and its causes.
The best summary of the significant scientific studies to date has been presented in the recent (2007) summary IPCC: “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”
DuPont hardly mentions it! Anyone who wishes to seriously explore this topic should at least carefully read the 22 page “Summary for Policymakers” section of the report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Here are some key summary conclusions from this report:
“Human influences have: {2.4}
very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter
half of the 20th century
likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting
extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns
likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold
nights and cold days
more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area
affected by drought since the 1970s and frequency of heavy
precipitation events.” (Page 6)
In addition, note this statement:
“Spatial agreement between regions of significant warming
across the globe and locations of significant observed
changes in many systems consistent with warming is very
unlikely to be due solely to natural variability.” (Page 6)
I don’t buy Pete DuPont’s anecdotal approach to the global warming issue versus a compendium of the work of a large number of top scientists who have worked on this issue.
It is so easy to make global warming an ideological political position which ignores the science like Rush Limbaugh or misuses the science like Pete DuPont!
At this point in time we cannot afford to be wrong, for the sake of future generations!
If you’re the usual Paul I know why you’re an idiot, but just in case you’re a different one, try using this logic: Overall global warming will not cause warming all over the globe. The fact that Greenland was once green doesn’t prove a thing about global temperatures; it shows that the North Atlantic current once ran a different course. David is taking one localized effect of climate and extrapolating it to the entire globe without any sort of evidence, because records weren’t being kept all over the globe — or much of anywhere, for that matter.
If you don’t understand that logic, stop embarrassing yourself.
Al,
Listening to you rants on the Radio, and repeatedly using “Slack Jawed Yokel (from West Virginia).” , You are an embarrassment to the radio station and your listeners who allow such elitist and offensive remarks about other societies and communities to go unchallenged. Apparently you and your supporters only see a certain subset of “minorities” that need protections. That is hardly a fair basis for demanding Equality. Your liberal circles are no better than a clique of little girls determining who is “in” and acceptable and who has “cooties” on the school playground.
Dave commented on Greenland in paragraph 3, the Roman empire in paragraph 4, and the world and Mars in the next paragraph. Hardly a localized observation. You missed that.
Perry Hood,
We can voluntarily decide to reduce our own emissions and to conserve, until controls are really necessary to enact.
Dave aptly closes his remarks with “I am all for reducing CO2 emissions because that would mean we are relying less on fossil fuels. I do have a problem with unnecessary actions which will destroy lives.”
So lets beware of the “Chicken Little’s who are running around saying ‘The sky is falling’”. Their cures will affect our lives, unnecessarily. Politicians will gladly use these opinions to enact penalties, taxes and other controlling repressive laws.
Back to Al,
Good job today on the Energy meeting. It helps surrounding you with Tyler Nixon, John Flaherty and John Kowalko.
11:45 am today: “Lets see how Harris McDowell operates, he is a loose cannon, high handed, double speak, Professor Cory, Gobbledygook, …” And AL, You are what??? Semantically superior?
You, Calling me an idiot? I will consider the source. LOL
Al,
Questioning your contorted linguistic logical contortions hardly qualifies someone as being an idiot.
Calling someone names is just a lazy shortcut. Your shortcut.
“Racist, bigot, homo-phobe, Catholic, Idiot, toothless, republican, Neo-con, progressive, liberal, Democrat, Nazi, Radio talk show host,
Narcissist, elitist, politician … ” — Usually ends the discussion.
Paul: If you’re the same Paul who insisted I owe everyone some kind of sign so they know when I’m serious, you don’t deserve the time of day. I don’t owe you training wheels just because you’re a dimbulb.
You don’t know the first thing about climate change if you’re going to take that layman’s tripe at #13 as some sort of evidence. I’m not going to educate you just because you’re uneducated. Every one of those observations is a snapshot in time and space. It proves nothing about global temperatures. (I shouldn’t waste the time to tell you this, but the Roman Empire covered a very small portion of earth. Look it up.) If you don’t understand that, it’s your problem, not mine. And if it makes you a slack-jawed yokel for failing to comprehend the subject, oh well.
As for the “liberal” business, I don’t run in “liberal circles.” I have as many if not more Republican friends (I don’t have many conservative friends because, I’m afraid, I find them a bunch of slack-jawed imbeciles). I’m also not running for office, so I don’t have to pretend to like everybody. And I’m not craven enough to pretend to think like a slack-jawed yokel just to keep the masses happy.
Glad you liked today’s show. Well, not really. If you are who you think you are, I’d prefer you listen to something else.
David I left a comment, but I think it went to spam….
There is no doubt the less crap we pollute the atmosphere with the better off we will be. How can you make an argument out of that? You can be fined for littering or spitting on the sidewalk. Why be against keeping greenhouse gases down? And don’t say because Rush and Fox told you to be that way. Pete duPont, is from back in the day when conservatives fought air bags in cars and didn’t buy into the argument that we needed to do something about air and water pollution. The Dupont Company paid hundreds of millions in fines while they were being dragged kicking and screaming into the environmental age. If it was up to Corporate them, they would be blowing all kinds of crap into the air and water. Thank God for Nixon and his EPA. The environmentalist have been right on about most everything they have crusaded about in the last fifty years. As Senator McCain says, what if they are right about this?
Because so called greenhouse gases are not pollution. Stop breathing! We are alive because of so called greenhouse gases. Our planet will be a dead planet without them. It is not the same as pollution.
Al,
“You can’t answer a simple question, and you’ve done nothing but insult me. It’s your never-varying modus operandi when anyone asks a question.”
Sound Familiar, see post #66.
http://www.downwithabsolutes.com/index.php/2008/05/07/new-ideas-from-a-worthy-candidate/#comment-112116
No, Paul, it doesn’t sound familiar, because you haven’t asked me any questions. And other than you, everyone can figure out what I’m saying. Your writing, on the other hand…
And, please note, you’ve answered none of my questions. You haven’t even indicated whether you’re Paul F. If you are, I think others can judge for themselves who’s the nut case here.
“The environmentalist have been right on about most everything they have crusaded about in the last fifty years. As Senator McCain says, what if they are right about this?”
Oh, really. They have been wrong more often than right. They were wrong about DDT and cost at least 100 million lives from malaria which would have been prevented. They were wrong about the oceans being dead by the mid nineties. They were wrong about economic devastation caused by drilling in the North Slope of Alaska. They were wrong about the earth not being able to support 3.5 billion people. They are either wrong about the new ice age or global warming (maybe both but to cover their bases, they now say climate change–I don’t know what it will do but I am scared). They were wrong about Alar. They are wrong about the rapidly increasing polar bear population being endangered. They were wrong that the clean air act signed by Bush 41 would not lead to a recession and then ran against the worst economy in “50 years”. They were wrong about nuclear power.
To be fair they are right about many things as well. We need clean air, clean water, and the cost of pollution should be on the polluters not the taxpayers. We need clean renewable energy. We need to be less of a disposable society. The scrubbers did cost money but they saved lives and money in the long run. Fuel efficiency standards may have saved American automakers because the foreign manufacturers would have eaten our lunch before they realized that we were serious about more efficient cars. There is value to preserving swamps and having open space.
I object to the emotional response not an intellectual one to environmental proposals. Some are great. Some need some study. Some are off the wall. We need to look at them all with a mind toward the facts. Shutting down debate is insane. Acting contrary to the evidence is ridiculous. On global warming, the evidence is very spotty that man is mostly responsible and against the alarmist predictions. Almost no one believes the sea level will go up 12 feet. Yet we are subjected to The Day After Tomorrow (at least they admit it to be fiction) and An Inconvenient Truth, which should be fiction and told it is denial to question them.
David, one is certainly entitled to believe that dinosaurs are non existent, even though their skeletal remains rest in almost every remain….
But doing so, justifies those who see, touch, and assemble the evidence to call out that person to be a fool…..
You make several outrageous claims:
Oh, really. They have been wrong more often than right. They were wrong about DDT and cost at least 100 million lives from malaria which would have been prevented. They were wrong about the oceans being dead by the mid nineties. They were wrong about economic devastation caused by drilling in the North Slope of Alaska. They were wrong about the earth not being able to support 3.5 billion people. They are either wrong about the new ice age or global warming (maybe both but to cover their bases, they now say climate change–I don’t know what it will do but I am scared). They were wrong about Alar. They are wrong about the rapidly increasing polar bear population being endangered. They were wrong that the clean air act signed by Bush 41 would not lead to a recession and then ran against the worst economy in “50 years”. They were wrong about nuclear power.
All of which to this scientific mind……are true…….You must therefore be held accountable for holding those views, which we can only guess are based on ignorance……
For brevity, I’ll just elaborate one point……
Have you been to the North Slope to see the damage first hand?
If you have, then I can call you out as a liar…….If you haven’t, the rest of us will politely allow you the excuse of ignorance….
(It’s been awhile…my friend….(but outrageous claims always bring out the best in me.)_)
Curious, is there anyone out there other than David who hold to such views?
I wish I could go to the North Slope. I know several people who have been there. I will gladly accept donations to do a fact finding tour.
Let’s be real about the North Slope. They predicted the Caribou would decline. They multiplied. You can go down the list of the predictions for the north slope. They did not come to pass. The penguins did go extinct in Alaska though. They all moved South to get away from the loud drilling noise. Just Kidding. One of the many things a few years in Oklahoma showed me is that oil drilling and nature are compatible.
Paul Ehrlich and company went around during the 1970’s claiming the sky was falling and we had to stop having children. The earth will not be able to sustain 3.5 billion people. The truth is that the earth sustains 7 billion with less poverty and starvation than it did 3.5 billion or 1 billion. It wasn’t that we needed fewer people, but that we need more freedom to innovate and more will to care about our fellow human beings. Socialism was the problem. Statism was the problem. Freedom was the answer. That is still true today.
Have you bought rice lately? It jumped 110% in two days. Haitians are eating dirt.
What do you mean we can feed 7 billion people better than 3.5? Do you mean we have enough dirt?
By the way, and the Caribou, if you did not know, are in a very tenuous position…….For some reason their calves are not growing full term……
David, I think you know our beloved Bald Eagle has returned to America since we banned DDT. DDT is one of those mysterious toxic substances that creeps into everything we eat and drink. Would you like us to start spraying DDT all over the place again? Remember the roll of the “alarmist”. Sure, maybe all the “sky is falling” predictions do not come true, but it sure gets us thinking and planning and thinking and planning and pondering worst case scenarios is part of collective security. NASA landed a probe on an asteroid to study the possibility of diverting an earth shattering collision. Don’t be so upset that people are thinking about how to protect us from all kinds of unlikely stuff. It’s all good. Relax.
The biggest problem with food prices are the falling dollar not supply. We are also have this problem of environmentalists forcing biofuel on us. That is causing a big demand on food stuffs. At least the new farm bill finally encourages sugar ethanol. I have been advocating that since Katrina. Sugar costs a lot less to convert than corn. It naturally changes into alcohol.
DDT and the bald eagle may not have been causational. It had more to do with us not hunting them and protecting their nests. Besides would I rather kill off a hundred million black people and keep the eagle or save the lives and lose the eagle. The evidence has shown we could have done both, but the hysteria of the ecological mafia kept us from looking at alternatives.
Al,
Then you do not recognize your own posts.
Follow the link. It is post #66, your reply to Liz, in DWA, in the ‘worthy candidate’ topic.
Seems that people can not ask you questions and expect a reply, whereas, you can. Hmmmmm.
Response to #23 & 24 above.
I remember back in the day being very skeptical about the need for catalytic converters on automobiles. Then, after the air began to clear, I realized I was a political partisan, not a scientist. Don’t let that happen to you. I have a feeling it’s the people who are pushing global warming that you are mainly against, not so much the concept itself.
*
yup
Science is not the enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only good thing about a McCain presidency is that an idiot is better than a communist. Lucky us.
I have made a very simple case for what I believe. The models (scientific theoretical models) which best predict the past and present are the the solar activity models while the CO2 models are being blasted or discarded weekly because of their inability to show predictability which is the criteria for following a model.
I am all for clean air. CO2 is natural, I emit it. Plant trees if it bothers you that it is slightly increasing. Pay Brazil to stop bulldozing the rain forest and begin restoring Africa’s. Those would be a much wiser use of resources than what is being proposed. I would much rather send 100 billion dollars a year to preserve and restore the third world ecosystem than a trillion in taxes and regulations. Restore the rainforests, and you get more rain and less CO2 in the atmosphere. Serious scientists on your side have proposed that. I have no problem with it.
The fact that the knee jerk solution is more regulation should make you think that there is a more sinister agenda. The fact that the science everyone so wants to bow down and worship is not behind it either should make you stop in your tracks.
Look at which models predict the best. Then tell me that I am wrong. Look at history, you see that the climate was warmer and when it was, the earth was better for it.
All I am saying is stop the panic. Act with reason. You want to move us from fossil fuels in the long run, fine. You want to plant more trees and stop the spreading desert in Africa and prevent one in South America, great. You want to base environmental policy based upon science, economics, and human rights and not emotion. I applaud you.