It just goes to show that there are crazy people every where in the world. But, there does need to be some environmental work done in China. Hopefully they won't eventually go psycho on China like they have in the U.S.
I think we have to separate those who wish to preserve the environment and the fruit cakes who argue they have proof man made CO2 causes warming on earth. It only makes sense to preserve the environment... look what happens when you do not force companies to store nuclear waste properly. you therefore do not caluculate the proper cost of kilowatt of energy from nuclear fuel. you therefore mis allocate resourses because the price does not contain info about true costs. Its one thing to preserve the environment with sensible laws its another to use it to transfer wealth.
But you don't shut down a million dollar highway project to save some itsy-bitsy spider. Especially when all you found was one and the scientists killed it. Or, you use it to advance your global warming agenda by putting Polar Bears on the endangered species list.
You left out that CFCs didn't cause no freakin holes in the atmosphere either. That one bought us a bit of time on the CO2 thing too. Not that you'd ever know it by these numbnuts.
you like to do drivebys... why dont you provide us with the studies which show CO2 accumulation causing warming on earth. I already provided your best argument... a 2012 paper which admited that warming preceded CO2 accumulation but then attempt to attribute some of the warming after the initial warming to the greenhouse. Of course the way they did it... is a bit suspect... but why dont you tell us how you know... CO2 accumulation causes warming here on earth.
I seem to recall us being told back in the Clinton administration that we had to act IMMEDIATELY or it would be pointless, too little too late, etc. We would be destroyed by the hockey stick or something. Now a decade later, they are still blathering the same scaremongering. I admit that AGW is a nice theory. But it's a theory, not proven. All the name calling in the world can't change that. It's impossible to test it empirically, so it has this religious quality about it. It has to be accepted on blind faith, which is ironically OK with liberals who have largely rejected traditional religion. AGW religion is preferable because there is nothing critical of gays in it. Now even the most optimistic AGW models will not produce a halt to climate change with just the uS and Europe acting. So unless China and India get on board, it's game over anyway. Like the guy int he WSJ said, the question is how much money we will waste to have no effect on the climate.
Yeah it's a theory. Like evolution. Speaking of religion, the interesting thing is that people that deny evolution also tend to deny AGW. Like evolution, AGW is essentially, for all practical purposes, proven. The current temps can only be explained if CO2 is included in the models. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is also proven. What to do about it is a seperate question but the arguing over the the basic truth of the science of AGW is over among the experts. It needs to be over within the general populous.
the odd thing is I produce science which shows the universe appears fine tuned and you deny science... Then when I ask you to prove man made CO2 causes warming on earth you give us nothing. water vapor is a greenhouse gas too. so what. are you arguing water vapor leads warming... as temperature goes up saturation goes up. or could it be that water vapor causes temperature goes up. No more hot showers. look at this chart it is more alarming than co2. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Dewpoint.jpg
Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolutionâs upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 2000, the UNâs IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes? Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UNâs IPCC did not know or did not think significant. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...rth-is-cooling/