BoatBanter.com - OT IF BushCo Doesn't believe Global Warming

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - OT IF BushCo Doesn't believe Global Warming (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/39175-ot-if-bushco-doesnt-believe-global-warming.html)

OT IF BushCo Doesn't believe Global Warming

Then why in the hell would they purposefully change the data:

Official altered reports on links to global warming
U.S. climate research edited to downplay effects of greenhouse gases on
environment
Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times

Wednesday, June 8, 2005

Printable Version
Email This Article

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against
limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate
reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global
warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and
2003, the official, Philip Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of
climate research that government scientists and their supervisors,
including some senior Bush administration officials, had already
approved. In most cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of
the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word
"uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that
most climate experts say are robust.

Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental
Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration
policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team
leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest
trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer
with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by the New York Times from the Government
Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for
government whistle-blowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior
associate in the office that coordinates government climate research.
That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the
documents that Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said Tuesday that Cooney
would not be made available to comment.

Other White House officials said the changes made by Cooney were part
of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents
related to global environmental change.

But critics say that though all administrations routinely vet
government reports, scientific content in such reports should be
reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of
environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they
illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Cooney
and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that
have long fought greenhouse gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with
climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz said the White House editing
and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8
billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate
change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Piltz
wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed
under this administration during the past four years, in which
politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the
science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and
integrity of the program."

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in
science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at
odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at
the White House on Tuesday, has been trying for several months to
persuade Bush to intensify U.S. efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions
through 2012.

On Tuesday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the
scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United
States and Britain, released a joint letter saying "the scientific
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action."

Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

*JimH* wrote:
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

I said "BushCo".

Bush's Flawed Arguments Against Regulating Carbon Pollution
Backing off his pledge to cut global warming pollution, President Bush
cited a flawed study and got the law wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, 2001, President Bush backed away from his campaign pledge
to seek cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main cause of global
warming -- as part of a strategy to regulate together, rather than
separately, four air pollutants emitted by power plants. In a letter to
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) explaining his reversal, the president cited
a recent Department of Energy report that concluded it would be too
costly to regulate CO2; he also claimed that CO2 is not considered a
pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Below, David Hawkins, director of
NRDC's air and energy program, and Dan Lashof, director of our global
warming project, let the air out of these arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carbon Dioxide Is a Pollutant
The McIntosh-EIA Report: a Flawed Study

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. CARBON DIOXIDE IS A POLLUTANT

In his letter to Senator Hagel, President Bush wrote that carbon
dioxide is not considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. This, of
course, is just a hair-splitting interpretation of current law, one
that provides no logical basis for the president to drop his promise to
seek a new law to control CO2. But it is worth noting that the
president is also wrong in his legal claim. CO2 is a pollutant under
the Clean Air Act, as well as in the real world.

How does the Clean Air Act define "air pollutant"?

The act says that an air pollutant is any "physical, chemical,
biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted
into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (CAA, sec. 302(g)) CO2 is
certainly a chemical substance and it is emitted into the ambient air
when fossil fuel is burned in vehicles and power plants.

Is there anything in the act that suggests Congress considered CO2 an
air pollutant?

Yes. In section 103(g) of the act, Congress explicitly included
emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel power plants in a list of air
pollutants that it directed the Environmental Protection Agency to
include in pollution prevention programs. Section 103(g) of the act
calls for "[i]mprovements in nonregulatory strategies and technologies
for preventing or reducing multiple air pollutants, including sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter),
carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including
fossil fuel power plants." (Emphasis added)

It is correct that this section by itself does not allow or require EPA
to regulate any of the listed pollutants, including CO2. Those
authorities exist in other sections of the act and EPA has used those
authorities to regulate other pollutants listed in Section 103. The
fact that EPA has not regulated CO2 to date does not transform CO2 into
a "nonpollutant." In the early 1970s, EPA had not acted to control lead
pollution, but it was clearly a pollutant because of its potential
adverse effects on health and the environment. EPA did subsequently
establish regulations for lead.

Isn't CO2 a "natural" part of the atmosphere?

Yes, but a pollutant is a substance that causes harm when present in
excessive amounts. CO2 has been in the atmosphere since life on earth
began, and in the right amounts CO2 is important for making the earth
hospitable for continued life. But when too much CO2 is put into the
atmosphere, its becomes harmful. We have long recognized this fact for
other pollutants. For example, phosphorus is a valuable fertilizer, but
in excess, it can kill lakes and streams by clogging them with a
blanket of algae.

In the case of CO2, fossil fuels have stored carbon for hundreds of
millions of years. Over the last 150 years, by burning fossil fuels,
humans have released that carbon into the atmosphere in a geologic
instant of time. We now are burning billions of tons of fossil fuels
every year. This has caused CO2 to build up in the atmosphere much as
an excessively rich diet causes life-threatening deposits to build up
in human arteries. Scientists agree that if today's fossil-fuel burning
trend continues we will build up concentrations of CO2 in the
atmosphere at ever-increasing rates. This build-up of CO2 threatens our
health and environment, just as excessive cholesterol threatens our
bodies. Scientists expect accelerating global warming to trigger severe
droughts, floods and storms; destroy coral reefs and habitats; and
increase the incidence of certain diseases.

What can we do to reduce carbon dioxide pollution?

Electric power plants emit 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution, and
unless they change their current practices their emissions will
increase dramatically. Fortunately, there are simple, affordable
measures that can put us on a path to reducing carbon pollution from
our electric generators:

Retiring and repowering inefficient, outmoded power plants can
simultaneously cut emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides and mercury.
Reasonable steps to make our homes and businesses more energy efficient
will further cut carbon dioxide and other pollutants from electricity
generators.
Increasing our reliance on renewable fuels (such as those grown on
American farms) and natural gas is one more method to cut carbon and
other pollution.

Motor vehicles are the second biggest source of carbon pollution. We
have the know-how to build cars and sport utility vehicles that pollute
less and do less damage to our wallets. We do not need technical
breakthroughs, because the technology is available today. What we need
is political leadership.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. THE MCINTOSH-EIA REPORT: A FLAWED STUDY

In his letter to Senator Hagel, President Bush cited a Department of
Energy report that concluded it would be too costly to regulate carbon
dioxide. That report is seriously flawed and contradicts a number of
authoritative reports that reached the opposite conclusion.

What report did President Bush refer to?

The so-called Department of Energy report is actually a report by the
Energy Information Administration (EIA), a statistical agency housed
within DOE. The report was prepared at the request of then-Rep. David
McIntosh (R-Ind.), one of Congress' most active opponents of mandatory
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and the Kyoto Protocol. In
preparing the report for McIntosh, EIA ignored the findings of the
DOE's much more thorough report, "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future,"
as well as input from independent reviewers and analysts at the
Environmental Protection Agency and Resources for the Future.

Is the McIntosh-EIA report consistent with other analyses?

No. The McIntosh-EIA report is contradicted by four other recent
studies that conclude major multi-pollutant reductions can be achieved
at modest costs. There are five recent studies of the costs of
multi-pollutant programs for the electric sector. Four of them conclude
that the costs will be moderate; only the McIntosh-EIA report assumes
the costs will be high. Other studies published in the last six months
by EPA, Harvard University, Environmental Law Institute-Resources for
the Future, and the DOE, all conclude that multi-pollutant program
costs would be quite reasonable. (See U.S. EPA, "Technical Assistance
on H.R. 2569, the Fair Energy Competition Act of 1999," January 2001;
"Coal or Gas: The Cost of Cleaner Power in the Midwest," H. Lee and
S.K. Verma, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
August 2000; "Cleaner Power," Environmental Law Institute, November,
2000; U.S. DOE, "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future," November 2000.)

What are the major substantive flaws in the McIntosh-EIA report?

The McIntosh-EIA report overstates total program costs by ignoring
gains from energy efficiency. The report analyzes an assumed future
where virtually no added effort is made to use electricity and natural
gas more efficiently. Because the computer modeling assumptions made by
EIA assume that unconstrained growth in electric generation will be
very high, the model must apply very large charges to achieve the
required pollution reductions. In November 2000, DOE published a
comprehensive study showing that sound efficiency policies could
achieve large multi-pollutant reductions from electric generators at a
net savings to the consumer. (See "Scenarios for a Clean Energy
Future," U.S. DOE, November 2000.)

The McIntosh-EIA report overstates costs by analyzing a program that is
not being considered. The McIntosh-EIA model does not analyze a genuine
multipollutant cap and trade program. Instead, it assumes the
equivalent of a carbon tax on top of emission controls for sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The EIA model does not account for
recycling the carbon tax revenues in a realistic manner. The result is
that the EIA model allows all electricity generators to charge
consumers based on the highest costs experienced by the most expensive
generating unit in the country, even though the average costs for
generators would be far less than the costs to control the most
expensive unit. This assumption greatly inflates the calculated "costs"
of the program. In fact, these estimates are not costs at all but are
tax revenues or windfall profits that would be received by electricity
generators if Congress were to allow such an approach. Since no bills
have proposed the approach used by EIA, its report amounts to an
analysis of an imaginary policy that conflicts with approaches actually
being considered by Congress.

The McIntosh-EIA report overstates program costs by assuming an
artificial future with no additional controls under current law. The
EIA report calculates costs by comparing estimates for controlling
pollution in new legislation to a hypothetical future where no
additional control requirements occur under current law. This is a
completely unrealistic assumption that ignores the facts of current
policy. EPA's promulgated air quality standards for smog and soot
(ozone and fine particles), recently upheld by the Supreme Court, will
require large additional reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides, yet EIA ignores these requirements. EPA is under a court order
to adopt controls on mercury from coal-fired power plants, but EIA
ignores this requirement. The United States has committed under the
Senate-ratified Rio Climate Treaty to adopt programs aimed at returning
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels, but EIA ignores this
commitment. EIA assumes that no additional controls will occur under
current law over the next 20 years beyond requirements in current
regulations. This results in an unrealistically low-cost "reference
case" assumption, which causes EIA's estimates of multipollutant
policies to be grossly overstated.

The McIntosh-EIA report overstates costs of reducing CO2 by failing to
analyze mercury controls. The EIA report does not include any controls
on mercury, even though all multipollutant bills require such controls.
Mercury control requirements, when combined with controls on other
pollutants, will promote replacing old, inefficient plants with modern,
high-efficiency gas-fired plants. These new plants would reduce all
four pollutants significantly, including carbon dioxide. Yet, by
ignoring mercury controls, the McIntosh-EIA report assigns all of the
costs of switching to a new fuel source to carbon dioxide only, thus
making CO2 costs appear higher than they are.

wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

I said "BushCo".

Define "BushCo".

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

I said "BushCo".

Define "BushCo".

Come on, Jim, JohnH's tactic of playing dumb when cornered doesn't fit
you well. I thought you were brighter than that. Think, what would you
THINK someone meant by "BushCo"?

wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

I said "BushCo".

Define "BushCo".

Come on, Jim, JohnH's tactic of playing dumb when cornered doesn't fit
you well. I thought you were brighter than that. Think, what would you
THINK someone meant by "BushCo"?

You cannot define a term you use quite often?

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:48:58 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

I said "BushCo".

Define "BushCo".

Come on, Jim, JohnH's tactic of playing dumb when cornered doesn't fit
you well. I thought you were brighter than that. Think, what would you
THINK someone meant by "BushCo"?

You cannot define a term you use quite often?

Ask him how he determines when someone else is 'playing dumb'? Should be
interesting!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

I don't know about that. Personally I believe that in the short term it's
possible to have a couple of degrees of climate change before the systems
move to stabilize the carbon dioxide levels More carbondioxide and warmer
temps mean more plant growth which means less carbon dioxide in the air.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

I said "BushCo".

Define "BushCo".

Come on, Jim, JohnH's tactic of playing dumb when cornered doesn't fit
you well. I thought you were brighter than that. Think, what would you
THINK someone meant by "BushCo"?

You cannot define a term you use quite often?

He's refusing to define it because you're using this to deflect the
discussion, after you were presented with information which crumbled your
initial premise. Get back on track, or shut the **** up.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Who told you to say that, meat head?

The guy that said we were heading towards another ice age the '70's called
and said that he was wrong and that global warming was the catch phrase now.
Global warming gets you more research grants now than studying the coming
ice age.

And, what are we going to do about the magnetic poles reversing?

"Ted" tedwilliams@nospam wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:20:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Who told you to say that, meat head?

The guy that said we were heading towards another ice age the '70's called
and said that he was wrong and that global warming was the catch phrase
now.
Global warming gets you more research grants now than studying the coming
ice age.

And, what are we going to do about the magnetic poles reversing?

What are you going to do about the spinning iron core of the earth? Put a
motor on it (chuckle).The old theory was a large deposit of magnetite.

Maybe you should just buy a Garmin, a lot cheaper and does not suffer from
magnetic declination. Throw the compass away. If you don't understand
magnetic deviation from true, better stay close to land.

Try reading something besides the comics every once in a while.

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...mag_flip.shtml

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

The guy that said we were heading towards another ice age the '70's called
and said that he was wrong and that global warming was the catch phrase now.
Global warming gets you more research grants now than studying the coming
ice age.

All through the 70's, you heard that because of freon and other
polutants, there is a hole in the upper atmosphere, and by 2000 , due
to "global warming" the entire earth will become the next ice age .
(Now, that makes sense!)

All through the 80's, you heard that because of freon and other
polutants, there is a hole in the upper atmosphere, and by 2000 , due
to "global warming" everything will be scorched from the face of the
earth will be nothing but desert.

All through the 90's, you heard that because of freon and other
polutants, there is a hole in the upper atmosphere, and by 2000 , due
to "global warming" the polar ice caps will melt causeing tropical
conditions and widspread flooding and the earth will be covered again
with water.

it's now the middle of 2005. Why is it that nature won't cooperate with
leading scientific studies? *cough*

"Ted" tedwilliams@nospam wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:38:04 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:

"Ted" tedwilliams@nospam wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:20:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Who told you to say that, meat head?

The guy that said we were heading towards another ice age the '70's
called
and said that he was wrong and that global warming was the catch phrase
now.
Global warming gets you more research grants now than studying the
coming
ice age.

And, what are we going to do about the magnetic poles reversing?

What are you going to do about the spinning iron core of the earth? Put
a
motor on it (chuckle).The old theory was a large deposit of magnetite.

Maybe you should just buy a Garmin, a lot cheaper and does not suffer
from
magnetic declination. Throw the compass away. If you don't understand
magnetic deviation from true, better stay close to land.

Try reading something besides the comics every once in a while.

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...mag_flip.shtml

So tell me, is the north pole a north pole?

Why do you want to know?

"Tim" wrote in message
ps.com...

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

The guy that said we were heading towards another ice age the '70's
called
and said that he was wrong and that global warming was the catch phrase
now.
Global warming gets you more research grants now than studying the coming
ice age.

All through the 70's, you heard that because of freon and other
polutants, there is a hole in the upper atmosphere, and by 2000 , due
to "global warming" the entire earth will become the next ice age .
(Now, that makes sense!)

All through the 80's, you heard that because of freon and other
polutants, there is a hole in the upper atmosphere, and by 2000 , due
to "global warming" everything will be scorched from the face of the
earth will be nothing but desert.

All through the 90's, you heard that because of freon and other
polutants, there is a hole in the upper atmosphere, and by 2000 , due
to "global warming" the polar ice caps will melt causeing tropical
conditions and widspread flooding and the earth will be covered again
with water.

it's now the middle of 2005. Why is it that nature won't cooperate with
leading scientific studies? *cough*

Read The Washington Post's areticle about research inflation or defaltion
depending upon the desired outcome ot the organization commissioning the
study. Pretty funny and pretty sad.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hundreds of thousands of research pages saying otherwise. BushCo itself
falsifying transcripts stating otherwise. BushCo itself NOW
backpeddling and saying yes, it does exist......
So, I take it you don't believe in your sacrid cow Bush and company
anymore?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say the opposite. Hehe!!

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hundreds of thousands of research pages saying otherwise. BushCo itself
falsifying transcripts stating otherwise. BushCo itself NOW
backpeddling and saying yes, it does exist......
So, I take it you don't believe in your sacrid cow Bush and company
anymore?

And hundreds of thousands of research pages stating just the opposite.

Changing ones position on something was a Kerry MO and he was praised for
it.....lauded as being flexible and listening to current thoughts and ideas.
But if one changes a position on global warming one is backpedaling.....that
is, if they belong to *BushCo*.

This *BushCo* thing of yours is interesting. Please define *BushCo* Kevin.
I asked you yesterday and you could not do so. Maybe you can today.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover the
earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that most
of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an increase
in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice to melt.
It makes you think.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover the
earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that most
of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an
increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice
to melt. It makes you think.

********************************
The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge are,
to put it bluntly, horrendous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75% of the
main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming
alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate is
an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control climate by
adjusting just one set of factors.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally
unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one that
has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the motive to do
so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early 1990s its
intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth, especially
in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is both faster and
worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural, but must be caused
by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be the United States.

The concept has been translated into a matter of faith, transcending "the
theoretical use of reason." For the good folk involved, following Kant,
global warming has become neither a matter of knowledge nor of opinion, but
wholly a matter of morality.

The threat of global warming has, as a result, morphed into the world's
public enemy #1, al-Qaeda notwithstanding. It is the ultimate product of the
Mordor of the present age, George W. Bush starring as Sauron, "Lord of the
Rings," with his genetically modified orcs and spouting smokestack
industries. It is the inevitable outcome of a Faustian pact with the devils
of capitalism, industrial growth, and profit. It is Christ tempted down from
the High Places to the ruin of the modern world. It is the "Shire" of Europe
against all the metal, mills and putrid production of an Erin Brockovich
America. It is Harry Potter versus the Quirrells of greed and gas guzzling.

Dangerously, we have allowed all of this myth-making to lead to the Kyoto
Protocol, to the foolish assumption that we can actually create a
"sustainable," unchanging climate (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The
Kyoto Protocol is a scientific and economic nonsense that will cost the
world dear in economic terms while doing absolutely nothing the stop our
ever-changing climate. And the idea that climate change is bad for all is
thoroughly challenged in a new book, "Global Warming and the American
Economy" (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited by the economist, Robert O.
Mendelsohn, of Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead
of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable
and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser
developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable them
to cope better with change -- whether hot, wet, cold, or dry.
By Philip Stott
http://www.techcentralstation.com/121301M.html

You're right. We should all double the amount of driving we do, leave our
lights on constantly, and leave the air conditioning set for 62 degrees when
we go on vacation for 10 days. Because carbon dioxide might be harmless,
it's safe to assume that all the other effluents of our luxuries are also
meaningless.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Research pages, hell. All it takes a slight amount of common sense.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover the
earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that most
of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an increase
in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice to melt.
It makes you think.

Ever heard of the concept of 'thermal mass'?

Anyway, there are hundreds of reports in the past few years of average
sea level rising. Meaningless, right? What's a few inches here or there?

Now think for a second... any reports *at all* of sea levels dropping?

Hundreds of glaciers all over the world shrinking... ice melting, in
other words... in some cases by a little, in some cases by a lot. Any
reports *at all* of glaciers growing?

If these were just random events, you'd expect as much evidence one way
as the other. Instead, *all* the evidence is slanted one way...

It's a treasonous plot by those dadgum America-hating libby-rulls and
the liberal biased media, that's what it is!

DSK

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Research pages, hell. All it takes a slight amount of common sense.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover
the earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say
that most of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so
that an increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to
cause the ice to melt. It makes you think.

Ever heard of the concept of 'thermal mass'?

Anyway, there are hundreds of reports in the past few years of average
sea level rising. Meaningless, right? What's a few inches here or there?

Now think for a second... any reports *at all* of sea levels dropping?

Hundreds of glaciers all over the world shrinking... ice melting, in
other words... in some cases by a little, in some cases by a lot. Any
reports *at all* of glaciers growing?

If these were just random events, you'd expect as much evidence one way
as the other. Instead, *all* the evidence is slanted one way...

It's a treasonous plot by those dadgum America-hating libby-rulls and the
liberal biased media, that's what it is!

DSK

About 1860, 20 miles of Glacier Bay, Alaska melted. Not refrozen since.
What did man do to cause this melting?

They elected Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. Don't you realize that
Republicans cause global warming?

"

Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover
the earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that
most of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an
increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice
to melt. It makes you think.

********************************
The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge are,
to put it bluntly, horrendous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75% of the
main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming
alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate
is an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control
climate by adjusting just one set of factors.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally
unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one
that has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the
motive to do so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early
1990s its intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth,
especially in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is
both faster and worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural,
but must be caused by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be
the United States.

Dangerously, we have allowed all of this myth-making to lead to the Kyoto
Protocol, to the foolish assumption that we can actually create a
"sustainable," unchanging climate (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The
Kyoto Protocol is a scientific and economic nonsense that will cost the
world dear in economic terms while doing absolutely nothing the stop our
ever-changing climate. And the idea that climate change is bad for all is
thoroughly challenged in a new book, "Global Warming and the American
Economy" (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited by the economist, Robert O.
Mendelsohn, of Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies.

So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead
of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable
and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser
developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable
them to cope better with change -- whether hot, wet, cold, or dry.
By Philip Stott
http://www.techcentralstation.com/121301M.html

I thought that's what the Kyoto treaty was designed to do. Cripple the
developed nations while giving a pass to the largest producers of greenhouse
gases, China and India. Pushed by France, a country that is 80% nuclear who
will become the dominant power in Europe if the treaty is implemented.

..

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Research pages, hell. All it takes a slight amount of common sense.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover
the earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that
most of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an
increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice
to melt. It makes you think.

Ever heard of the concept of 'thermal mass'?

Anyway, there are hundreds of reports in the past few years of average sea
level rising. Meaningless, right? What's a few inches here or there?

Now think for a second... any reports *at all* of sea levels dropping?

Hundreds of glaciers all over the world shrinking... ice melting, in other
words... in some cases by a little, in some cases by a lot. Any reports
*at all* of glaciers growing?

If these were just random events, you'd expect as much evidence one way as
the other. Instead, *all* the evidence is slanted one way...

It's a treasonous plot by those dadgum America-hating libby-rulls and the
liberal biased media, that's what it is!

DSK

The plot is the end of the world scenarios that are being put out as truth.
While I have posted that I believe that we might see an increase in the
average global temperature from greenhouse gases, some climate shifts in
marginal regions (a couple of inches less rain here and a couple of inches
more rain there) the doom scenarios require too much change in global
temperatures. Glaciers and Ice packs that were created during the last mini
ice age (due to the sun) 1000 years ago that have been melting at a steady
rate for the last 500 years (as the sun heats up) have accelerated their
melt. These areas were already melting and an increase of 1 degree has a
massive impact. It's been predicted that using the worst possible model
that within 50 years if all that ice melts the seas will rise 2 1/2 feet.
( The poles will still have ice caps as that ice is at -50 degrees).

It's more probable that the following will happen. Plant life will
flourish, 20 years from now the supplies of fossil fuels will become too
expensive and we will shift to other forms of energy. Less carbon dioxide
will be produced but the plant life will be converting more carbon dioxide
than is being produced leading to a short term swing to LESS carbon dioxide
in the air. We will then have a global cool down that will cause global
temperatures to drop below what we have today. The seas will start to
recede from the 8-10 inch increase at that point.

What you are thinking is who does this guy think he is, that's alot of
bull****. BUT what I described is more likely than what we have been
hearing from France and our press. ANYONE making wild speculations about
the future SHOULD BE treated with skepticism.