If your talking about things like acid rain then yes there is a definite linkage proven by science. The idea that human emissions affects climate is science fiction . If you are arguing for the reduction of known pollutants than I'll sign on... it is good policy .

But the "hypothesis " that human emission of carbon dioxide can have any affect on the climate had better be proven beyond a doubt before you ask humans to fundamentally change their ways. I see more proof that climate change is greater affected by sun spot activity.

Let's also throw out for debate the proposition that the last time the earth experienced a significant global warming cycle ,the earth was lush with vegatation and animal life thrived. It took an extra-terrestrial killer asteroid to plunge the planet into the ice age that we are still retreating from .So what is the natural state of the planet ? Cold and ice caused because a killer asteroid plunged into it killing off multitudes of plant and animal life ? Or warm and full of life of all kinds .

Hello again, George & tom:

So, you DO think it's fine to use our air as a garbage dump. I thought as much.

excon

Obviously you did not read my response.

Ex,

It's that kind of extreme that makes me shake my head. Apparently we righty's can't be reasonable. Since we question the propaganda we must obviously think that “we can just put TONS and TONS of garbage into the air WITHOUT ANY consequences,” as if we love our smog, nasty rivers and Wal-Mart bags flying from our trees.

We can't take a step back and question the science or buck the consensus. We can't think it a little odd for environmentalism to take on a religious fervor and we're obviously out of touch with reality to object to ceding our rights and sovereignty in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Funny, but questioning the prevailing opinion sounds just like something you would do in so many other areas.

Sorry, but when I read things like the stadium in San Francisco is going to be submerged due to melting sea ice I have to laugh. Go take a glass of ice water, mark the level, see what the level is after it melts – and then tell me I'm crazy for not believing everything I read about global warming.

Dear Ex and others who belong to the religion of Man Made Global Warming; all sane people including those of the Right, believe that we should make greater effort to preserve the environment and wean ourselves from fossil fuels. What I find offensive is that ALGOR says "the debate is over", and that anyone who has not become a deciple of MMGW is branded as a stooge of the oil industry, a fool, or an evil person, who should be sent off to a "re-education camp."

Three points that I have not seen the MMGW camp address are: 1) Since CO2 is but 0.5% of the atmosphere, and man's contribution to that might be 20%= 1/1000 of the atmosphere, one could conclude that other more important factors would be in play. 2) Increases in temperature seem to Precede increased CO2 levels by about 800 years, which should negate the causality of CO2. 3) Changes in solar activity are ignored by the MMGW camp, as a possible cause.

Inquiring minds want to know.:)

Hello again,

Look, I'm not a scientist... I'm just a guy who knows there are consequences for being disrespectful to our environment...

I don't know if it's going to get warm, cold or start raining fish. I don't care. I'm sure it's going to DO something. The Goricle has studied the issue. He makes as much sense as anybody does... I certainy don't think he's looney!

The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...

If you're NOT doing that, then tell me what price, if any, YOU think we'll pay for dumping our garbage out there... Inquiring minds want to know.

excon

PS> Tom, it's true. I just threw your name in there at the last minute... But, you're not off the hook.

This questioner (not nay-sayer), just asks, asks, and asks, only to have his questions ignored in every discussion. Yes, ALGOR has studied the issue, and probably has about as much scientific education as Madonna or Michael Moore. ALGOR has made millions from his book and movie. His proximity to the glitterati earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, which should have gone to the fine lady who rescued thousands of children from the Nazis in WWII.:)

That's just it, ex, I don't know who is running around out there dedicated to the proposition that there are no consequences for being disrespectful to our environment, there are. There are also consequences to jumping in with both feet to this religion of environmentalism.

Hello again, Dr:

I'm not ignoring your questions. I just don't know.

You ARE ignoring MY question, though. Calling yourself an inquirer doesn't get you off the hook.

Ok, I'll make it EASY for you. I got that you think global warming is hogwash... So, I'm not going to ask you about THAT.

What I want to know is, do you think there are ANY consequences to throwing our trash into our atmosphere, even if you don't know what they are?

excon

George, one thing about your line of thinking is if your wrong, there may not be anyone around to rub your face in it.

parttime

The problem as I see it is that although the Goracle has declared the debate ended ;in fact there is not a consensus among scientists about cause and effect. There was a time when such differences were welcomed in the scientific community . Instead those who dare "nay say " are treated as heratics.(speechlesstx main point)

Public policy should not be conducted this way ,committing tremendous resources and fundamental sociatal changes to a problem that may or may not exist.

Hello again,

I have GOOD news for you righty's. Global warming MIGHT be a hoax. We're not going to find out, though, so you'll still be able to carp about it...

So, whether throwing our trash into the air DOES or DOESN'T cause global warming, is going to be a MOOT point.. What we DO know, is that we're running out of oil, and notwithstanding Dr D's unwillingness to say there's a consequence, THINKING people around the word KNOW there's a consequense...

But, the running out of oil thing is the really BIG point. Because we're going to have to find a way to run things when we DON'T have any oil. THAT should be our priority. Clean air will simply be a BYPRODUCT of that. End of argument.

So, who cares whether it's global warming or an ice age?? We're never going to know, because, in SPITE of you guys, Obama is going to take us in a NEW direction, and we'll never find out... Poor Goricle.

excon

Then again . We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Oh yeah Obama will take care of that too.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know. For righty's, you don't seem to think much of our entrepreneurial spirit. Instead, you sound like Exxon stockholders.

So, you DON'T think there's a way out of being addicted to oil/coal? Really?

excon

Ex - I do not believe that Global Warming is hogwash, but that the jury is still out as to the cause. If we are in for a period of warming, I believe that the main cause will be found to be solar in origin; that the increased temperature of the oceans, causes a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere - hence the 800 year lag from warming to more CO2 -makes sense to me. If the warming turns out to be beyond our control, the vast expenditures proposed by ALGOR to reduce man's 1/000th contribution to CO2 levels, and the disruption of the economies of poor nations that the Left claims to care about, would be better spent in preparing the world for the inevitable.

Of course I don't believe that we can throw garbage into the air, water and soil without consequence, and that efforts should be made to reduce pollution of any kind. Since we live in the real world, with finite resources, I believe that any asset should be put to its highest and best use.

Ex
I think that coal can be burned clean ;Obama doesn't and he will not invest in it . I think nuclear power provide safe power. Obama doesn't .

It's not an oil/coal addicition... I think there is no way for us to lose our energy addiction and still remain a vibrant country .

Yeah I know... invest in windmills .

Quote:

---

Of course I don't believe that we can throw garbage into the air, water and soil without consequence, and that efforts should be made to reduce pollution of any kind. Since

---

That makes 3 of us that have stated controlling pollutants is a laudable goal. It is an argument that deserves to be made on it's own merit... not clouded in the deception of junk pseudo science .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's not an oil/coal addicition .... I think there is no way for us to lose our energy addiction and still remain a vibrant country.. Yeah I know ....invest in windmills .

---

Hello again, tom:

No, I don't have the answer. If I did, I'd be a jillionere. But, I DO believe in our ability to create an alternate energy economy, and not only remain vibrant (which we AIN'T), but that economy would MAKE it vibrant.

I guess I believe in the entrapranure... I really don't understand why you don't. Maybe you ARE an Exxon stockholder...

You know, we're very close to breakthroughs in battery technology, in hydrogen cell technology, in fusion technology, in geothermal technology, in robo/gps/autocar technology, and many, many others. A breakthrough in ANY of one of them will put us on top and keep us there for the next century... I have no doubt that we can do it...

I don't know why you don't.

excon

Now have you ever heard me oppose research in any of those ? Of course you haven't just like you never heard me say that carbon burning should be the sole emphasis of our energy policy . But now this has drifted away from the subject of the posting .
The problem as I see it is that none of the solutions you cited are near term ;but climate change chicken-littles are advocating draconian responses when there is no long term solution at hand .
Don't want dirty coal emissions ? How about applying that techno-knowhow to scrubbers for smoke stacks ? There is more of a chance of that having an immediate impact on the environment than the resources devoted to robocars ;and more of a chance that we could export that technology immediately world wide.

During this spirited discourse, I have noticed that members of the Left Team (wearing the blue jersy) either choose to ignore of fail to read statements of the Right Team (wearing red of course), and continue to attribute positions to the Red Team which are not theirs, and then proceed to knock them down. This device is known as the "Straw Man".

The Left Team appears to be in favor of the "Precautionary Principle" in order to promote their agenda or idiology. Below is a short explanation:
For
.. to avoid irreparable harm to the environment and to human health, precautionary action should be taken: Wherever it is acknowledged that a practice (or substance) could cause harm, even without conclusive scientific proof that it has caused harm or does cause harm, the practice (or emissions of the substance) should be prevented and eliminated.

Against
We should not let the distraction of purely hypothetical threats cause us to lose sight of the known or highly probable ones.
When we apply the precautionary principle and focus on hypothetical risks and ponder what actions we might take "just in case", we leave the world of science and enter the realm of ideology. We allow ourselves to come under the spell of those who are motivated, for whatever reason, by a desire to return to what they perceive as a pre-industrial Garden of Eden

Go AZ Cardinals - "The worst team to ever be in the playoffs." This Cinderella team, led by Kurt Warner, the patron saint of old, over the hill guys, could take it all. - A Zonie:)