Thankfully much of the rhetoric surrounding
global warming climate change has died down. With the stunning leak of the papers in the UK and with Al Gore revealing how he trumped up the crisis so that he could do well in Iowa, we are seeing the outcry begin to diminish.
But it’s still out there and we need to pay attention. So, here it is, a small lesson in what makes the planet warm and cold.
The sun has a rhythm, it ebbs and flows to a beat all its own. And as it performs this dance, we are affected. And it can be traced:
As the colar cycles change, so to do the temperatures on spaceship earth.
No, the sun connection has been debunked. Talk to climate scientists, they are almost completely in agreement that it is the increase in CO2. There has been nothing recently to diminish that, and the evidence increasingly points to it.
The chart you post says nothing about long term warming, it offers no explanation of that. Here is a link to a chart that does show the connection between CO2 and warming:
The key: avoid political sites. Al Gore is irrelevant. Look at what the scientists say, what the models say, and what the evidence is. See what the experts believe, not what political propagandists say. I never watched Al Gore’s movie because it was obviously a polemic. It might or might not be right, but you can look for arguments on each side of the issue, and people latch on to what suits their political preference. When I talk to scientists (the ones I know, including Republicans, all believe we’re seeing human made global warming) or read what climate scientists write, I see an alarm based on their interpretation of evidence and models, and what the consequences might be. The smear campaign against those warning about global warming has been effective (though the evidence grows with every new study), but it’s a gamble. If we lose, our children and grandchildren pay the price. That’s too important to leave up to political arguments, you have to look at what scientists are saying.
Here is a link to a chart that does show the connection between CO2 and warming:
The chart IS compelling. And yes, the chart I provided does not address long term warming. That’s another topic.
though the evidence grows with every new study
That’s the rub; I don’t think it is.
If we lose, our children and grandchildren pay the price. That’s too important to leave up to political arguments
I agree, it would suck if I was wrong.
So, let’s say, for argument sake, that you are right.. That man is contributing to warming [which I DO happen to agree with by the way] AND it’s on a path to catastrophic consequences. The solutions are all wrong.
If you want to reduce CO2, then tax it. And if you don’t wanna hurt the economy, make the policy tax neutral.
Take away carbon credits that are handed out by politicians. These can be bought by favor and corruption. Straight tax on CO2. Then reduce the payroll taxes on labor by the same amount. The business feels no net financial burden; just a change in incentives.
I think the argument that the proposed solutions are wrong is a good one, and I’m not sure where I stand on that. I wish that was the focus, because those opposed to the policies tend to argue about the science, it makes those of us who find the science reasonably convincing (though recognizing high uncertainty levels to this kind of issue) having to support the policies by default. There isn’t a creative debate about different ways to approach this. The tax policy you suggest is intriguing. I’ll have to think through this better. (And though I believe the science shows global warming is happening, I’m not sure what can or should be done — I am skeptical that governments can solve this through laws).
I think the argument that the proposed solutions are wrong is a good one
I continue to maintain that I don’t buy into catastrophic climate change, however, it would make “your” side more believable if the solutions being proposed were consistent with reducing CO2 and not redistributing wealth. A large part of the problem that climate change folks have is that this debate’s solutions don’t sound any different than the overall goals of the Liberal Left.
Your tax policy… ” tax on CO2. Then reduce the payroll taxes on labor by the same amount. The business feels no net financial burden; just a change in incentives.”
How will that adversely effect the competitiveness of businesses that just happen to be low producers of CO2 but have high labor costs. As an example, let’s consider apple farmers. They would be able to cash in big on the reduced labor costs, yet pay very little in CO2 taxes. Conversely, businesses that happen to be big producers of CO2 but with very low labor costs, would never be able to recoup tangible labor tax savings. (I can not think of a business that makes CO2 with low labor costs, but it must exist.)
How will that adversely effect the competitiveness of businesses that just happen to be low producers of CO2 but have high labor costs. As an example, let’s consider apple farmers. They would be able to cash in big on the reduced labor costs, yet pay very little in CO2 taxes.
The price of apples would fall commensurate with their tax breaks. In other words, apple farmers compete with other apple farmers, or other fruit growers perhaps, and not against coal miners.
2010 was rated the warmest year in how many years, tied I believe with 2005. Yet here in Pa we are having a colder than average winter . In fact our ski industry continues to do fine . I worked at a ski resort in the early 70s and we had much warmer winters back then.
In the LA Times yesterday they had the kind of story I have been waiting for the climate change idiots to run. I have always thought that if there really was global freaking warming there would be a measurable rise in sea level . I have always been puzzled why the green weather men have not published stories on this. Well low and behold they have a story about Ventura California have to move a parking lot and bike path inland because of coastal erosion and rising sea levels.
At first glance it is pretty ominous. Sea levels up 8 inches for the last 100 years. Could go up another 55 inches in the next century.
In researching further, I have found that a rise of 8 inches is well within natural parameters. In fact it is on the low side. According to researchers at Southampton UK, the average rise in sea levels since the last ice age is 1 meter per century.
Also coastal erosion is pretty normal .
Sea levels up 8 inches for the last 100 years. Could go up another 55 inches in the next century.
My favorite such story is the one in the NY Times:
They report that the beach is eroding. AND they report that the town is built on a marsh covered in fill. No mention that the sinking is natural; all climate change.
That’s one I missed. I like that ” relative ” sea rise of 14.5 inches since 1930. If real sea rise is 8 inches in a century then I guess the land sunk more than 6 inches.
That’s one I missed.
Check the comments; we’re winning.