On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:
> > On 22-Jan-09, at 5:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> I have yet to hear a single point about what "global warming" >>> initiatives adversely impact other "good" environmental causes or >>> energy independence. >>> >>> I'll put one out there myself: carbon offsets. I think it's a >>> bullshit idea that needs to die a swift death. >> >> It's a matter of credibility for environmentalists. I'm constantly >> fighting my coastal activist colleagues to avoid basing their >> opposition to projects based on the overstated effects of global >> warming, namely sea level rise. > -- > > Whether you think man is or isn't responsible for this "crisis", the > ice caps ARE melting, and sea levels ARE rising. Whether you think > it's a natural phenomenon or some man-made idiocy, that doesn't > change the observable facts. Sea level is rising at about the same rate as it did before we started pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. the rate in several orders of magnitude less that stated by the alarmists. Anthropogenic CO2 accounts for about 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 accounts for about 1/6 to 1/4 of the current GHG effect. Doubling or tripling the amount of all CO2 -- both natural and anthropogenic -- will not increase the GHG effect because CO2 is currently doing about all it can to retain heat from a red body such as Earth. Do the math, and consider the non-linear dynamic nature of the GHG effect of CO2. As Bjorn Lomberg >> I agree wholeheartedly with you on carbon offsets. They're a really >> bad idea intended to enrich a few (Gore, former Treasury Secy >> Paulson, Gore, Soros and the like) without any measurable positive >> effect. > > This is the kind of stuff that reeks of tinfoil hats. You might want to do a little investigation on your own to see who owns those carbon trading companies. I forgot to mention the energy companies. Looks like they figured out how to make money with offsets, which may explain why Exxon has changed their position on cap and trade. > It's pointless, but I'm pretty sure it's not a liberal plot. That's right, it's not a right or left, liberal or conservative issue. it's a "follow the money" thing. >>> Otherwise, the environmental keys are pretty much the same across >>> the >>> board: emit less, consume less, buy local (that includes energy). >> >> No argument from me on those suggestions. I think they're all good >> and necessary, consistent with good environmental policy and will >> achieve the desired effects. > -- > > Great. So what is it, exactly, that you object to? Being called a "denier" or "flat Earther" when questioning the conclusions of the alarmists for one. Government control of energy sources and uses for another. Massive, costly and ineffective government efforts to stop global warming for another. Really bad journalism and politicking that declared a complete scientific "consensus" and the matter "settled science" when neither one was true. The total politicization of science for yet another reason. And finally, the complete and utter domination of global warming alarmism that prevails in research. We need to spend more research dollars on the causes of climate change instead of merely researching the effects of climate change. > Your primary concern seems to be what we call it. How about: > > Francis' Magic Melting Icecap Carnival > > Is that an easier pill to swallow? Because your dissent about who > said what and why is just the kind of FUD that people regularly latch > on to when they need an excuse to make absolutely no effort > whatsoever. There you go again completely mischaracterizing my position on global warming. My primary concern, which I've stated quite clearly on numerous occasions on this list and in responses to you, is that we will implement policies aimed at stopping unstoppable global warming when we should be developing policies to adapt to climate change. Where will people live and grow food? What will happen to fresh water supplies? What are some of the beneficial effects of global warming we can use to our advantage? (It's not all bad, you know.) Conversely, and of greater concern, is what will we do about global cooling? Evidence suggests we're entering a cooling phase. That means less arable land and fewer hospitable places to live. > What does that one dentist know about toothpaste that prevents him > from recommending it? I'm not brushing my teeth until I find out. If that goes on long enough you can grow little sweaters on your teeth. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
