Global Warming, Part 3

I am not opposed to the idea of climate change and I am concerned about the effects of carbon monoxide, and other gases, building up in the atmosphere. All lifeforms have an effect on their environment and certainly homo sapiens have a large impact.

However, I dislike the idea that "this is settled science". Science needs skeptics and there is nothing "settled".

Our Energy Secretary would like us to paint our roofs white to reflect heat and therefore reduce global warming. Meanwhile, global warming is causing ice to melt, releasing more moisture into the atmosphere which causes more rain and snow. And the snow reflects heat which causes global cooling. OK, now I see.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576047741057676566.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The EPA and Carbon

The EPA recently announced that it has determined that CO2, Methane, and some other global warming gases are damaging the environment and that they, the EPA, is permitted under the Clean Air Act of 1970, to regulate. I would think that Congress could pass additional legislation that would take away this right but that won't happen.

So, now the EPA is threatening Congress to pass Cap and Trade or similar legislation to control greenhouse gases or they will.

Supporters say that it is about time that we use science to make decisions. But these science supporters make no mention of behavioral sciences. The EPA can only regulate the US. It would seem obvious that manufacturing and cattle operations would simply go overseas. We live in a global community-why operates where the costs are higher?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574582284174773944.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Climate Change

First of all, I consider myself an environmentalist and think that we should tread lightly in terms of our environmental impact. I also believe that the philosophy of science indicates that we know very little and all scientific theories are only the best guesses based upon our current knowledge. All theories change with more data. And now there is data that indicates for the past 10 years we have had some global cooling.

"Even alarmist Tim Flannery, confronted on Lateline with the emails of the global warming conspiracy, concedes holes in the “science is settled” argument and admits to what he didn’t before:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_news_spreads/

Climate Change

Climate Change scientist caught with Al Gore blow-up doll.

http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientists-advocating-man-made-global.html

P.S. This is a joke.

Climate Control

OK, Clinton failed to get Congress to pass any global warming legislation for the Kyoto Accords of 1997 and now Obama will be equally unable to get any approval for legislation for the Copenhagen meetings, designed to replace the retiring Kyoto Accords in 2012.

And yet Bush is the bad guy, apparently. Obama, with the Democratic Party controlling 60% of both houses in Congress, has no excuse, except for his own poor leadership.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14900648&fsrc=rss

Want to Save the Planet? Eat your dog.

Pets have a rather large "pawprint. A medium size dog contributes as much CO2 as a 4.6 liter Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles/year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/time_to_eat_the_pets.html

Global Warming, Part 2

What a thought! Apparently in order to cut emissions, we need Congressional approval! Who knew?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8061929.stm

It is a little disconcerting that Secretary Chu does not know about the progress made over the past 3 years as was pointed out earlier in this blog.

Global Warming

This weekend there will be a World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Among the speakers will be Al Gore who is not only a advocate of reducing CO2 emissions but also the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.

Now, we would not like a Exxon sponsored conference on the benefits of petroleum, would we? Shouldn't we dismiss outright such obvious conflicts of interest?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html

And, of course, let's not forget about GE which stands to make a large profit on cap and trade policies. GE is the parent company of NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, all of which, oddly enough, support cap and trade policies.

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090520141935.aspx

How come no one has asked what seems to be a logical question: If the government "sells" indulgences and allows some to pollute, who gets the money from the sale of these indulgences? Doesn't the air belong to the people? Shouldn't money raised from this go directly to the citizens?

CO2 Emissions

Politics appears to impede progress. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there has been considerable improvements on the environmental front over the past 8 years. (8 years is a arbitrary number but there seems to be a steady increase of 23% in CO2 emissions from 1993 until 2001 followed by a levelling off. CO2 emissions currently in the US are about where they were in 2001.) Of course, Bush and Congress did little to cause this but other groups have stepped up.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update77.htm

It will be interested to see if the Obama administration can produce improved outcomes. It is not enough to stabilize emissions, we should see a reduction.