Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Saturday, July 4, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.
Paul Krugman˙s Tuesday column in the Las Vegas Sun against global warming “deniers” reveals that the issue of global warming has long since left the area of science and is now a political or even a religious issue.
Science is never settled; it’s always open for discussion. Mr. Krugman has no interest in discussion, particularly with the many capable scientists with differing opinions.
That politics rules the issue can be seen from the mostly party-line vote on the climate change bill passed June 26 in the House of Representatives with only eight Republican votes. Even some of the proponents of the legislation don’t claim significant environmental improvement will result.
Those favoring the bill endorse intrusive regulation of Americans’ lives in ways that will make us recall with fondness the infamous low-flush toilets that environmentalists forced on us years ago.
Taxing our energy production gives a competitive advantage to nations smart enough not to commit economic suicide by taxing their energy to please the United Nations. Their advantage will cost our nation jobs at the same time new energy taxes hit our standard of living.
Why, in the middle of a recession, would our county put itself at a competitive disadvantage internationally and burden itself with complex regulations and new energy taxes for a negligible benefit? The only answer can be that it must be a matter of religion because it can’t be reason.
Hey uddeboda >>>>> You can forget about the industrialized world! SWEDEN will not be part of that anymore in another 15 to 20 years when the Muslims finely take over whats left of Europe. Also i don't think that they like sauerkraut, To bad that your socialist government dos not allow private ownership of guns to protect yourselfs oh well you know what they say sh#t happens. PS DON'T CALL US ANYMORE!
Good post Ed.
I wish with my job I could control what was to become of my future investments, but then to be a politician you have to turn your back on your constituents.udebodda I, can't say that I'll even consider rating your comment. I just can't stand foreigners who enjoy heckling american citizens about the problems we are having in our own country. Udebodda please no more post about our country. You could just critisize your own country if you're a bad mood.
Paul Krugman is a denier of an open inquisitive debate of potential anthropogenic global warming.
Obama has shut up Alan Carlin of the EPA who has questioned OBAMA's global warming endangerment argument. EPA's Al McGartland told him his work could not be presented.
What is the debate about -- Backers of the cap and trade bill at best claim that by 2050 the temperature will be 0.05 degrees cooler then without it.
The Carlin report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations' 2007 "Fourth Assessment" report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments.
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/c...
Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.
All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations like the United Nations.
Of major concern is the lack of quality control and credibility of the temperature instrumentation program.
Global climate models are very undeveloped.
-In particular anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse are not statistically a factor,
-Scientist have reversed themself on the impact of water vapor
- the model confidence level is well outside the error band for any other acceptable science.
For the climate control legislation to claim that they will be able to reduce the world mean temperature by 0.05 degrees in 2050 is pure fantasy.
Compounding the inexact science of the global warming model - is the distinctly separate exercise of "what if science" of the consequences of global warming. Because Paleoclimatologists cannot predict an actual temperature within a margin of error, they assume a 2, or 3, or 4 degree rise then proceed to use team of environmental experts to speculation or conjecture that then oceans will rise, the birds will die, and we will have famine.
Note that the mean annual temperature difference between Helsinki and Rio de Janeiro is 24 degrees and both thriving with life.
EPA should independently analyze the science using the DOE National Labs
There is no climate change, it is a scheme to steal more of the taxpayers money. Udderboda should tour the rest of the World to see what they are doing for the global warming farce. Try China with over one billion people. There have been fifty new coal burning power plants built there in the last few years. Everywhere you go there are coal trucks delivering coal to produce energy. Remember the Olympics? They had to shut down the local power plants because the tourists could not see the sky. India the second most populist country, a very similar situation. Brazil, in the western hemisphere is also very similar. Drive down into the Sonoran desert in Mexico and you see the people carrying bundles of mequite for cooking and warmth and everything else south of the border is that way too. It is all they have. If you think any of these nations are going to clean up the air you are a fool.
Yeah Europe is doing a little but their socialist economies, especially England and Spain are on the verge of colapse, which they richly deserve for being so stupid.
Climate change has been a fact of life since the 1st organism appeared on this earth and will continue to occure with or without human intervention... The winners will continue to be the ones that adapt to those changes.
The biggest problem we face lies in the fact that the people who possess the answers to dealing with the solutions to surviving these changes aren't being asked to supply those answers.
Will we [USA] spend what remains of our wealth buying "carbon credits" instead of preparing ourselves for the future?
pmmart,
Exactly...uddeboda said in a response to another climate change letter yesterday that climate change occurred at regular intervals every 130,000 years or so. I pointed out to him that that was categorically false, and used the Medieval little ice age as an example but he said to ignore that, much like the man behind the curtain, and still insisted that climate change only occurred at these 130,000 year intervals. He is incapable of reasoned or rational discussion. He did make one intelligent suggestion today in his last post...
"YOu dont have to read my posts."
...I must agree with uddeboda here, that is good advice for anyone seeking the truth, it will not be found in his posts!
For anyone interested in the truth about climate change/global warming, here's a useful article...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/globa...
....some pertinent excerpts...
"Asked if it is not established that the earth is cooling, Singer explained that "The earth is either always warming or cooling; one cannot tell which it is unless one specifies the time interval.
It's like the stock market: it is rising or falling. Both depend on whether it's a week or a month or a year. It's the same with the temperature -- if we start during the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago, then the temperatures have warmed. If you start from the Little Ice Age, which ended 200 years ago, it certainly has warmed.
If you start from 1998, however, then it has not warmed -- it has cooled. So it depends on the time interval. People argue about this, and much of the difference between groups comes about when you don't specify the time interval. There's no question that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years."
...and this...
"He went on to explain that "Nothing untoward is happening. The ice is not melting any faster, the sea level is not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency; there's been no impact. Those things are always hard to measure. It depends on statistics. The easiest thing is to specify temperature, because it's easily measured and there is relatively little disagreement on what temperature stands for."
...and this...
"He then went on to challenge what he called former Vice President Al Gore's "mantra" that he says Gore's "been handing out for years now -- that the science is settled. That is simply not true.
When you have 31,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition saying they disagree with the current wisdom that humans are producing increased warming, it speaks for itself. It's true that the 31,000 are not all climate scientists. There are not that many in the world.
However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any."
This has already been thoroughly discussed and cussed in the previous thread "Don't wait to act on global warming."
It's amazing there are so many Chicken Littles who can't seem to get past the headlines. And science driven by political agendas just isn't science.
uddeboda,
I'm well aware of our (USA) NOAA's position on climate change/global warming, probably due to the fact that their funding comes from a need for global warming. Their position is very similar to the Woods Hole Research group, which is mentioned in the article I linked...here is the pertinent part...
"In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.
In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.
Singer said the Woods Hole group "put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.
Singer explained: "We thought it would be useful to write a letter that would provide a balance. The instigator of the letter was Harold Lewis, a retired professor of physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara." Lewis, he said, "provided the initial draft, several of us made comments and seven of us signed our names to it."
...the point is, Uddeboda, that the science behind global warming/climate change is NOT settled, as Algore and his cohorts proclaim.