Ooops! Everyone re-do your costs for Global "Warming"

My hobby is amateur astronomy, and one of the things you learn when you study the stars is that many of them are variable. I don't know if there have been any studies on the heat output of the sun, but that would be interesting to correlate it to our heat cycle. Imagine what a 0.01% change in the heat output of the sun might do. I once read that Mars is undergoing global warming too...don't know if that is true or not.

Secondly, I don't want to derail this thread, but there is a concept that needs to be publicized. Here in the U.S., we have strict rules for air emmissions at manufacturing facilities. China does not. If we enact Cap & Trade, the economic forces would move more production to China, essentially switching production of many good from our air "scrubbed" facilities to "unscrubbed" facilities elsewhere. I'd also love to see a study that would use economics to impact the net change to air pollution resulting from air pollution. Willing to bet it would be a wash at best.

SM

 

Obama's "Cap and Trade" is not primarily about carbon, air pollution, or anything of the sort. It's about GOVERNMENT CONTROL... as the Obamacare/Tyranny medical bill.

 

Are you sure?

What about dust particles in the sky?

Dust particles in space between earth and the sun?

Variations in solar radiation?

Why are there variations in the trend of warming?

Seemingly the global warming graph should follow the stock market graph, if you think about it, since economic activity is directly correlated to CO2 production and the stock market. Well, does it?

 

Climate science is closely controlled by a few people in the IPCC who behave in a very unscientific manner. I'll use my expertise to say that.

Its one thing to say that the earth is warming.

Its another thing to say that we are causing it, especially when the data is apparently shoe-horned to fit the hypothesis. That's called curve-fitting and shaky statistical analysis (at best). Since this is a trading board, I'll remind you what happens when you over fit your systems. If you do that on a consistent basis, I'd love to be on the other side of your trades.

Finally, its ludicrous to think a tax is the solution. Regulation of emissions is fine - nobody wants to breathe that stuff. But to tax it driving production to non-signatory nations is so stupid its not even worth arguing over.

Not to say I haven't considered buying land in the Dakotas. But I disagree with the tax and the data analyses, and I have the quant background to back up the latter. Sorry.

 

Variations in solar radiation are included in climate models. Attached figure shows the relative weight of the "forcings" used in NASA models. Notice the Sun on the right (and they do attribute some warming due to the sun)

 

These guys didn't believe the global warming data stood up to scrutiny, but until this week no one got their hands on proof the data was falsified.

Here's their conclusions before the Climategate revelations

http://www.climatecooling.org/

 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.”

Inhofe also noted that there appeared to be “a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism.”

“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports.

“Another scientist stated, ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,’” Inhofe added.

The controversy “could have far-reaching policy implications,” Inhofe wrote,” affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs,” and the Section 202 (a) of the EPA’s Clean Air Act – policies that “will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57879

 

Lord Christopher Monckton releases the definitive report on ClimateGate

Guys, if this gets support it can screw up a lot of their plans, including imho trader tax...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...n-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf

We should be supporting the call for transparency. If they get away with this at Copenhagen, they are on a roll.

 

Have you followed the recent news regarding the IPCC? I think it safe to say the IPCC has an agenda.

 

Don't forget about NASA not releasing climate data.


http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Cli...Legal-fallout-of-Climategate--CEI-to-sue-NASA