The mask slips for global-warming activists

posted at 2:17 pm on July 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The global-warming climate-change movement has insisted that their primary concern is to keep the planet from overheating due to greenhouse-gas emissions.  If so, one would expect that they would stick to plans that cut those emissions and focused on nothing else.  However, the latest proposal on international carbon caps shows that the movement is less concerned with carbon emissions and more concerned about kneecapping economic success:

Researchers in the U.S. have proposed a new way of allocating responsibility for carbon emissions they say could solve the impasse between developed and developing countries.

The method sets national targets for reducing carbon emissions based on the number of high-income earners in each country, following the theory that people who earn more generate more CO2.

“It’s fairer than some other ideas out there in the sense that we attribute responsibility for emission reductions based only on the number of high-emitting people in the country — if the country has large number of people who are high-emitters then it has more work to do,” said Shoibal Chakravarty, a research scholar at Princeton Environmental Institute. …

“By and large for every 10 percent increase in income, the emissions from a certain person go up about six to 10 percent. This is true pretty much everywhere in the world. … What happens is that initially people spend their money mostly on direct use like transportation, air conditioning, heating and cooling and so on,” Chakravarty said. “But they also spend a lot of their money on buying goods, and buying stuff. And to make stuff you use energy and you produce emissions.”

Let’s make this clear.  First, Princeton has to resort to the hypothesis (not “theory”, which indicates a substantial level of proof in scientific jargon) that higher-income people generate more carbon emissions because they can’t measure it.   When people use the phrases “By and large” and “pretty much everywhere,” they’re not speaking scientifically but giving opinions.  In this case, they’re looking at data on emissions by country (an inexact science anyway) and comparing it to rankings from the World Bank, hardly a rigorous scientific process.

Second, this makes little sense anyway.  The act of earning a living doesn’t generate carbon emissions — consumption and production do.  If you wanted to tax for carbon emissions, you would tax consumption or production directly, not income, even if you can’t scientifically relate carbon emissions to either.  The relation between income and emissions is at best indirect.  At least consumption relates fairly directly to production, and a tax on the former would definitely suppress the latter in any economic system.

So why focus on income?  The entire point of the global movement to arrest energy production is to punish the industrial nations for their wealth.  This is just redistributionism writ large.  They don’t want to limit carbon emissions per se; they just want the right people to emit carbon.  Nations like the US, the UK, and other Western nations would have to be out of their minds to agree to a regime that allows China and India to emit far more carbon per capita than themselves, in order to meet some Utopian ideal of “fairness” in economic success.

If activists honestly want to limit carbon emissions, then they would argue for consistent limits for all nations.  This kind of system reveals the underlying animosity to modernization and economic success that lies at the heart of the environmental movement in general and global-warming hysterics in particular.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

All those beautiful Indian names, and they had the unmitigated gall of calling Green Bay/Stinking Bay.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Naw…it was only stinking in the 1950s, then Lombardi arrived..LOL

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM

At some point or other, don’t we need some kind of firm deadline from these people as to when exactly the world’s going to end in a fiery heat wave of death?

Professor Blather: Are you asking the true believers for some definite exit strategy? Heh!

onlineanalyst on July 15, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM

White fish from Lake Michigan used to beach themselves in Green Bay, and the French and the Indians, then later the British used to call it Stinking Bay. Man, history sure is boring.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

This is the exact kind of reasoning that the villains in Ayn Rand’s writing used. They earn too much so if we bring them back to Earth, others will begin to earn that money. But what it does when you cripple the true earners, the lesser earners slip as well.

This is ridiculous.

allstonian on July 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

The filters at my company site started blocking WUWT several months ago.

MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Gorram watermelons.

I’m for Galt’s Gulch.

Noocyte on July 15, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Dare I say, now we know why Obama supports watermelon legislation?

onlineanalyst on July 15, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Well fat albert

Irreversible
tipping point
gone to far
Destruction.
How about a lottery and people could toss money in a kitty to gamble on the end. It is a gonner. why not start an office pool.

seven on July 15, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Maybe it’s time to have an ‘open season’ on Global Warming Zealots. If nothing else, we’d get rid of a substantial number of carbon emitters.

GarandFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM

What sucks, is that Lombardi got to the promise land before Landry even though they were coaches on the same team in the 50′s. Sorry, on my 40th year as a Cowboy fan.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I don’t accept the premise of climate change as defined by these wacko environmentalist. Why accomodate them at all? Until this hypothesis and or theory becomes proven as the LAW of global warming climate change, I refuse to accept any notions by pseudo scientist. See below for a few examples of proven laws (mathematical & scientific)
======================================================

The law of attraction (relates to desired a cause yields a proven effect)

The law of biogenesis (In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of science)

The law of cosines (for calculating one side of a triangle when the angle opposite and the other two sides are known)

The law of demand (A microeconomic law that states that, all other factors being equal)

The law of exponents (mathematically proven law E.g, (xy)n = xnyn.

This list could go on and on but there is NO LAW OF GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE

Why hasn’t anyone argued this point about the theory of climate change is a wonder to me? IT IS NOT A PROVEN LAW. We should not allow ourselves to be duped into a heavy tax when nothing has been proven yet.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM

What sucks, is that Lombardi got to the promise land before Landry even though they were coaches on the same team in the 50’s. Sorry, on my 40th year as a Cowboy fan.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Classic 60s Packer (Lombardi) / Cowboy (Landry) rivalry.
Two of the very best.

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Sorry, on my 40th year as a Cowboy fan.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:20 PM

My sympathies

scorpio9 on July 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM

This is the exact kind of reasoning that the villains in Ayn Rand’s writing used. They earn too much so if we bring them back to Earth, others will begin to earn that money. But what it does when you cripple the true earners, the lesser earners slip as well.

allstonian on July 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

True, but the lesser earners slip much faster, which in a way, is poetic justice for the much maligned rich. The great unwashed will suffer plenty for their allegiance to the dems.

Monica on July 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM

No offense, but what do they produce that would get in the way of a 42% reduction of carbon emissions? Aren’t they a bit pastoral to be considered a developed nation?

bluelightbrigade on July 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Wait…you equate “pastoral” with “non-developed”?? Huh? Have you BEEN to Scotland? Do you know anything about it, or are you just assuming from seeing Braveheart? They’re not totally pastoral, and are certainly developed…only with a fairly sizable Lefty community, just like England. What you mean is they are not Metropolitan “by and large”, right? :) I hope you were just expressing yourself badly.

Don’t pick on Scotland. Right now, I’d rather be in Edinburgh than the US. (It’s countryside would make it difficult for the govt to be too overbearing.:)

tickleddragon on July 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM

I was one of the 3.5 million people who claim to have attended the ICE BOWL.

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM

scorpio9 on July 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM

No sympathies, always been a proud and exclusive Cowboys fan. For I will never relent, even with Jerry.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

was one of the 3.5 million people who claim to have attended the ICE BOWL.

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Good thing you had that hunk of cheese on your head to keep you warm :-)

scorpio9 on July 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Let’s call em what they are…

Money grubbing freaks!

capejasmine on July 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Friggin Meredith. Reminds me of Danny White and unfortunately, lately Tony Romo.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Why hasn’t anyone argued this point about the theory of climate change is a wonder to me? IT IS NOT A PROVEN LAW. We should not allow ourselves to be duped into a heavy tax when nothing has been proven yet.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

But, but, there is a consensus! They voted on it!
/

Vashta.Nerada on July 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Friggin Meredith. Reminds me of Danny White and unfortunately, lately Tony Romo.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Meridith was a good QB. 1966 was Landrys fault when he put Hayes in at the goal line. 1967 wasn’t Meridith’s fault, he had them in place to win. It was the defense that suink them there, and Kramer moving before the ball snapped.

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM

was one of the 3.5 million people who claim to have attended the ICE BOWL.

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Good thing you had that hunk of cheese on your head to keep you warm :-)

scorpio9 on July 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

LOL..believe it or not, that was LONG before the “Cheeseheads”

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM

This hypothesis has all the suspicious earmarks of a senior paper in the research course “Global Economics: Problems and Policies” wherein the senior was so busy after Inauguration Day that the senior paper didn’t get done and the professor said “I’ll give you an ‘A’ if you take an Incomplete but get the hypothesis published on an international platform in a venue you don’t control.

That’s how damn juvenile it is!

ExpressoBold on July 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Good, but not great. Meredith retired early cause of the failures of the 60′s. A great QB always puts you in a position to win, no matter the elements. White had plenty of time to win against S.F. after “the catch”, but he let himself not only get sacked in the final minutes, but fumbled the ball. If he had only held on to the ball and moved 20 yards, then the child molester Septien could have won the game vs the Niners. That might have ended Montana’s mystique.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on July 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Our favorite science czar ex-ketchup heiress scientist who authored books fantasizing about uniformly sterilizing everyone through the food supply is also one of the founding fathers of the rich impact theory. He even introduced a formula for it:

Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology.

Buddahpundit on July 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I recall not being able to breathe in Delhi, India because the people burn charcoal to heat their huts. The miasma of pollution was horrible. In other countries, they burn the rainforests, causing huge clouds of soot and, of course, carbon dioxide, that float across entire continents. On the other hand, I drive a car that, thanks to modern technology, barely pollutes. I live in a house that, thanks to modern technology that only developed countries can afford, runs on generally clean electricity. I live in a society that is wealthy enough to clean up its messes, unlike the dirty, polluted developing nations. And so, I’m supposed to sacrifice my way of life so that the real perpetrators of carbon dioxide emissions can continue? It’s all a scam that the United Nations is running to transfer wealth to the overpopulated, polluting, corrupt undeveloped world.

NNtrancer on July 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM

I love this article (July 13, 2009): Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago

Some excerpts:

A runaway spurt of global warming 55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said on Monday.

Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet’s surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years.

Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations,” warns Zeebe’s team.
This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.”

VibrioCocci on July 15, 2009 at 3:52 PM

The science of the matter stops here:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps and holds infrared radiation (specifically, photons–in three narrow infrared bands in the case of carbon dioxide).

It does this so efficiently that 99 percent of the radiated heat it can trap, it does trap–not miles up in the atmosphere but within 100 meters of earth. This has been confirmed for years by satellite measurement.

Therefore, if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere… you get no additional trapped heat. There can be no increase in warming owing to increases of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 3:54 PM

I remember traveling to Hong Kong before it went back to China.. I toured HK and at the end of the day, when I blew my nose, it was BLACK, there was so much smog in the air. Took a side trip into China, there were huts built over rivers, that was their toilets, right into the river. YUCK

Cap and trade and corruption

“There’s a big con going on, and it is outrageous. Under ‘cap and trade,’ the feds tell heavy industry what they can spew into the air. If a company goes over the emission amount, they must buy ‘carbon offsets’ from another company, so the companies that keep emissions low make money. Less gunk in the air is good, but this is the con: Some big corporations will make billions off this ‘cap and trade’ deal. Goldman Sachs is a goliath investment company that last year made more than $2 billion in profit, paid its CEO about $43 million, but paid zero in federal income tax. Goldman owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the ‘cap-and-trade’ deals will be made, and stands to vacuum up money. Also, Goldman employees gave President Obama’s campaign more than $1 million. Guess who else is invested in ‘cap and trade?’ Al Gore founded a company that will profit big time if the ‘cap and trade’ deal becomes law. Since Al Gore launched his global warming crusade, his net worth has increased 5,000% to more than $100 million. This definitely sounds like ‘change,’ change that Mr. Gore and Goldman Sachs can believe in.”

The Factor interrogated Fox business anchors Stuart Varney and Cheryl Cassone about the financial aspects of “cap and trade” legislation. “Look at the cost of this,” Varney began. “Energy prices will go up, utility bills will go up, and what is the benefit? Zero! No noticeable difference to the climate in the near future. There will be lost jobs and the ruin of American industry – when we start putting restrictions on our ability to manufacture at a reasonable cost, companies will exit the country.” Nevertheless, Cassone predicted that some version of the legislation will be enacted. “This president has strong approval ratings and a majority in Congress, and a very watered-down version of ‘cap and trade’ will pass, but it is all for nothing. Goldman Sachs and others will make money off it, and why shouldn’t they?”

reshas1 on July 15, 2009 at 3:59 PM

I know, let’s base it on population since we can measure how much CO2 the average person exhales on an annual basis.

Kafir on July 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM

…not “theory”, which indicates a substantial level of proof in scientific jargon…

No, a higher level of evidence. Proofs are for logic and math.

Blacklake on July 15, 2009 at 4:04 PM

The science of the matter stops here:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps and holds infrared radiation (specifically, photons–in three narrow infrared bands in the case of carbon dioxide).

It does this so efficiently that 99 percent of the radiated heat it can trap, it does trap–not miles up in the atmosphere but within 100 meters of earth. This has been confirmed for years by satellite measurement.

Therefore, if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere… you get no additional trapped heat. There can be no increase in warming owing to increases of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 3:54 PM

.
I’ll need a link for this theory of yours.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Is there ANYBODY that can put a grass roots effort together?!
Skywise on July 15, 2009 at 2:20 PM

It’s called the TEA party movement, you pantywaist!

It’s obvious that you are not involved with them and you have discounted them, because if you were involved, you would know how organized they are aganst the Cap and Trade scam!

Geez!!
I can’t believe you people here are so uninformed here!!
Well I can…. with the pantywaist bloggers at the helm, dishing crap out at Sarah Palin and discounting or underestimating the TEA parties in general….praising Obama’s speech in Cairo… and the list goes on and on…..

Mcguyver on July 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Dated 07/15; From the Corner @ NRO:

House Members Being Hammered Over Waxman-Markey [Iain Murray]

I’m hearing that the popular reaction to the passage of the Waxman-Markey electricity tax bill in the House has blown House members away. The public outrage is really hurting those who voted for it, and that’s why the bill has been “parked” (as the Blair government used to say) in the Senate. Very good sign. We need that sort of public pressure to defeat this monstrosity, and similarly for the health-care plans. If these two overreaches go down, Obama’s political capital will be spent. How often has a president become a lame duck by his own actions within a year of taking office?

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Mcguyver on July 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM

No offense, but…

*hammer falls in 5…4…3…*

bluelightbrigade on July 15, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I’ll need a link for this theory of yours.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Seconded.

bluelightbrigade on July 15, 2009 at 4:18 PM

If these two overreaches go down, Obama’s political capital will be spent. How often has a president become a lame duck by his own actions within a year of taking office?

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 4:14 PM

You need to STOP getting our hope up!

Sheesh.

/s

VibrioCocci on July 15, 2009 at 4:19 PM

onlineanalyst on July 15, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Ugh.

Noocyte on July 15, 2009 at 4:24 PM

The poor little brown people are not responsible for their carbon emissions any more than they are responsible for their political and cultural behavior. They have so little, we have so much. Soak the rich, mandatory daycare for children, kumbya.

BL@KBIRD on July 15, 2009 at 4:29 PM

I know, let’s base it on population since we can measure how much CO2 the average person exhales on an annual basis.
Kafir on July 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM

You will be required to report to breathing classes beginning in January. Participation is mandatory. The classes will teach you how to exhale correctly so that you will exhale two parts of water vapor for every part of CO2. During the first session, you will be fitted for a mouth-over vapor-exhaled measurer (MOVEM). You must wear this device until you have completed training, including during sleep and bathing. Input ports have been designed into MOVEM so that you will be allowed to ingest food material and liquids.

You will be required to pay for the MOVEM devise with payroll deductions or by credit card (plus merchant’s fees) if you are unemployed. The cost is $150.00 plus excise taxes, international service user capitation (ISUC) and service trainer federal union (STFU).

Participation in MOVEM ISUC STFU is your patriotic duty.

/sarc

ExpressoBold on July 15, 2009 at 4:31 PM

I’ll need a link for this theory of yours.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Not the link that you were asking for, but this chart gives partial support to the claims.

Notice how well the bands that CO2 absorbs match up with bands that water is also absorbing.

The three main bands already absorb 100% of the energy available in those bands.

You might especially want to compare the location of the CO2 absorbtion bands with the top chart, which shows how much energy the earth emitts at each frequency. Only one of CO2 bands falls within the earth’s transmission bands.

Another point is that as the earth warms, it’s emission spectrum will shift to the left, away from the one CO2 band that matters. In other words, the warmer the earth get’s the less influence CO2 has.

MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Rich countries burn natural gas, oil, and coal relatively cleanly. People who don’t have such fuels tend to burn wood, which doesn’t yield as much energy (due to the energy needed to boil the water in wood), and cutting down trees prevents them from absorbing CO2 out of the air.

So, we tax the efficient, clean-burning natural gas to burn more wood and cut down the forests. Is that what they want?

Steve Z on July 15, 2009 at 4:37 PM

You need to STOP getting our hope up!
VibrioCocci on July 15, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Closing line on Law & Order: CI, episode “Silver Lining” : “Hope is for suckers!”

ExpressoBold on July 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM

the movement is less concerned with carbon emissions and more concerned about kneecapping economic success

The entire point of the global movement to arrest energy production is to punish the industrial nations for their wealth.

This kind of system reveals the underlying animosity to modernization and economic success that lies at the heart of the environmental movement

Shocking intellectual dishonesty from Mr. Morrissey here.

How can you possibly believe this? It’s inane. It’s insane. It boggles my mind that an intelligent person would actually publish this.

You really think that what Al Gore wants – what the vast preponderance of the scientific community wants – is to “kneecap economic success”? I mean, if you believe that’s what the result will be, that’s fine. I disagree, but that’s an area of reasonable disagreement.

No, you believe that’s what they actually want. That’s completely wacko.

What they want is for us to stop destroying the planet. It’s not terribly complicated. If you believe that there is a better vision for America and for the world, then fine. Lay it on us. But if all you want to do is paint environmentalists as some sort of Snidely Whiplash caricatures, then you’re missing an opportunity to be part of the discussion.

Come down off the ledge, right-wingers. We in the real America need a sane conservative movement to temper things, to get all sides of an issue to move forward intelligently. But as long as you’re spewing silliness like this, you will be further marginalized and ignored.

Please, for the good of the country, consider sanity.

orange on July 15, 2009 at 4:44 PM

I’ll need a link for this theory of yours.

–Americannodash

Wish I had one to offer. I’ve seen the satellite results online. But this goes back to my time as a science editor, before PCs.

Some people here are linking to an article (in different versions) that wonders about increased heat 55 million years ago that cannot be accounted for entirely by the the 70% increase in CO2 at the time. That increase in CO2 will still be less than 600 ppm. There have been times in geologic history when CO2 concentrations reached 5000 ppm (the range, incidentally, when really lush plant growth starts–and air starts smelling stale to us. At present, we are not far above the carbon dioxide concentration at which plants start struggling.) If memory serves, such elevated concentrations were obtained at times from the massive crushing of limestone during the formation of the Himalayas starting 50 mya.

I had wanted to publish the work of a couple of historical meteorologists (names?) whose claim was that we were just ending a 60-year period of the most ideal weather in the entire Holocene and would be slowly returning to a more normal pattern of increased variability, esp. hotter summers and colder winters (a better explanation for what we are seeing). That interest led me to follow global climate ever since. I have wondered why global warming alarmists would seize on one of the more paltry greenhouse gases, esp. one known to be doing already all the work it can do. Guess it’s because it’s the one that can be pinned on us.

And, btw, there have been three times since atmospheric carbon dioxide began to be measured in the mid-1800s that concentrations have increased to as much as 450 ppm (it’s around 380 today) with no attendant temperature increase.

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Whoa! MarktheGreat, perfect! That’s exactly what I was saying. Hope that helps, Americannodash.

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 4:51 PM

I recall that in the early to mid 80′s the MSM posited the question: Where have the 60′s leftists gone(The Reagan era was in full swing)? Some pundits suggested that they had become involved in the environmental movement. They were right and now they’re back with a vengeance. But now they have the power to regulate our money out of our pockets in order to fulfill their wealth redisribution schemes.

paraff on July 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Come down off the ledge, right-wingers. We in the real America need a sane conservative movement to temper things, to get all sides of an issue to move forward intelligently. But as long as you’re spewing silliness like this, you will be further marginalized and ignored.

Please, for the good of the country, consider sanity.

orange on July 15, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Hey, you forgot your “/sarc” tag !!!!

ExpressoBold on July 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Another point is that as the earth warms, it’s emission spectrum will shift to the left, away from the one CO2 band that matters. In other words, the warmer the earth get’s the less influence CO2 has.

MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2009 at 4:35 PM

.
Snap shot is not persuasive. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

I could say that H2O is poison because when it rains this causes you to piss up a rope and die. That is a theory not a law. It has not been proven that rain water makes one pee up ropes and die but it sure is an attention getter isn’t it?

This chart doesn’t consider concentrations correctly & seasons are not taken into account for potential fluctuations. Concentrations of the elements in sequence are in the improper order of density (mass/volume) related to actuals of the earths atmosphere. In addition the time line of occurance is not consequential to my argument. Therefore, I declare that a hypothesis/theory does not make it a proven law. No law of climate change has been established. C&T is a money grab and future revenue source for the government and nothing else.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 5:10 PM

orange on July 15, 2009 at 4:44 PM

.
Don’t drink and comment here HA. Drinking excessive amounts of Kool-aid can be hazardous to your wealth.

Find an KA meeting near you tonight. 12 step programs are available if you promise to leave this country by 2010.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM

And, btw, there have been three times since atmospheric carbon dioxide began to be measured in the mid-1800s that concentrations have increased to as much as 450 ppm (it’s around 380 today) with no attendant temperature increase.

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM

.
Saying and /or writing about such things second hand does not advance your argument. You show me where the law of climate change is written down and I’ll give it a read otherwise stop responding to me.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM

orange on July 15, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Hey dummy, have you bothered to look at any of the science that has been presented in this, and many other, HA threads? No, you haven’t. That would destroy your entire twisted worldview.

Do you really believe that Al Gore doesn’t know this science? Do you actually think he’s as ignorant as you are? He’s not, he knows he’s lying through his teeth, and so do most of his fellow travelers. There can be no other conclusion, as the science clearly shows that CO2 does not cause, or even contribute to, global warming. Beyond that, the climate has been changing for the entire history of the planet.

Given all that, there really is only one possible explanation for the behavior of the radical enviro whackos. They actually do want to destroy any economy they PERCEIVE as being superior to any other, particularly those economies run by leftist dictators. Note how not ONE of those dictators has EVER been taken to task by Al Gore.

You can ignore all the facts you want, and apparently that’s really the only thing you’re good at, but stop trying to pretend that you have any interest in anything anyone who isn’t also an enviro whacko has to say. While you’re at it, you should probably be more careful whose sanity you question.

runawayyyy on July 15, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Let me just add, the day that Al Gore starts ACTING like there’s a threat from global warming, I might decide to listen. Until then, it’s just so much “hot air”.

runawayyyy on July 15, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Wow, let me get this straight. Let’s say we have a high population of highly compensated, ohh, entertainers for example who earn millions BUT compost, eat locally grown organic foods, use dry toilets, use 1 square per bowel movement and drive hybrids. Even though they are living this Gore sanctified lifestyle we ALL end up with higher reduction targets? Won’t higher targets = a higher tax paid?

Do you remember how you felt about that one wonk in your class graded on a curve that always blew it for everyone? Can you think of a better way to villainize high earners? The more *you* earn the more we ALL pay? The hatred targeted at anyone earning above the 75th percentile or so would be the very best way to ensure that they either a) leave or b) purposely underachieve.

As I have said many times, the libs are not stupid, crazy, or blind. They are putting the perfect governance in place to ensure that the US becomes a nation with a vast and permanent dependent underclass of agrarian people-stock who do what they are told and worship their government cheese providers.

GregoryNeilSmith on July 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM

I’ve had a debate on this with an economics professor who seems to have a sweet spot for China. When I suggested that it was unfair for the USA to consider any climate treaty without China even being made demands of – he explicitly rejected that notion, stating that China could not be made demands of at all. What I was suggesting is that the United States should obligate themselves to certain limits, while China should at least be given a set of non-obligatory goals to meet. Nope, said the economics professor.

His basic message was, “LEAVE CHINA ALONE!!”

He also bragged about how Obama was going to make gas $5/gallon in the US to force Americans to buy better vehicles. Clearly this fairly well-to-do professor can’t see past his navel and his well-to-do peers to see how much of a challenge and outright unfair expectation this is of most Americans.

This professor isn’t just spouting off, either, he’s been to the Clinton-gang Brookings Institution many a time to share ideas and be chummy. The $5/gallon idea is probably an inside secret amongst their group, to be foisted on the US public at a convenient time.

Seixon on July 15, 2009 at 5:45 PM

You show me where the law of climate change is written down and I’ll give it a read otherwise stop responding to me.

Americannodash

It’s right here: http://www.whatanasshatclownyouare.com

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 6:16 PM

You show me where the law of climate change is written down and I’ll give it a read otherwise stop responding to me.

Americannodash

It’s right here: http://www.whataclownyouare.comedy

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Chaz on July 15, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Thanks but no thanks, I don’t want to see your home movies.

Americannodash on July 15, 2009 at 7:13 PM

The Liberals have this idea about the coming of the Teacher. The proof is the new bright star. Its good entertainment.
It’s the second coming, where we are to share our wealth with the world. Major redistribution on global scale.

Ed Laskie on July 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM

It’s just those BIG COMPANIES that have to, using a term from a different article here, “buck up” and deal with the carbon emissions that threaten the baby fur seals…or was that different? Anyway:

Cap and tax won’t affect them, just the FILTHY RICH.

I’m pretty darn sure that’s the Lib/independent/RINO mentality.

Allow me to amend that…most Libs don’t know and don’t care about all this as it is someone else’s problem and the GOVERNMENT under Lord Obama will fix everything and save Mankind from the evil clutches of greedy Republicans and ignorant gun-toting, Bible-thumping Rednecks…uh, like Sarah Palin.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 15, 2009 at 10:04 PM

No, you believe that’s what they actually want. That’s completely wacko.

Orange

Riiigggghht….and Democrats don’t want to stick it to the “rich” in order to fund “free” health care either.

Here’s what’s wacko….buying oceanfront property while running around the world claiming our beaches will soon be under 20 feet of water. And what’s even more wacko is when poor fools like you slurp that kool aid like Barney Frank slurping a foot long.

xblade on July 16, 2009 at 1:12 AM

It’s not about taxing the rich and wealth redistribution, it’s about global governance! Getting a treaty which requires some world (read UN energy secretary) source to check on global corporations’ carbon footprint will be the first step in getting us all under UN control. Link

Christian Conservative on July 16, 2009 at 1:42 AM

I’ve heard a notion put around by Indians and other developing countries that although they emit more emissions than the UK and Europe, and the Chinese are on a par with the US, somehow those emissions don’t count because they have a larger population. Per head, their emissions are small.

At first it seems reasonable, but then you think: Europe and America have a declining population. We are countering our emissions by having fewer children (not counting immigration.)

But China and India have a booming population, despite China’s state control. So we could equally demand that rather than have us cut our emissions, they should damn well start using condoms. If they need to generate more emissions because they have a larger population, then get a grip on their population and problem’s solved.

Of course the idea is absurd. You can’t force people to have fewer children. Its unethical and it wouldn’t work. But it is the obvious counter-argument to their equally absurd nonsense that they should be allowed to pollute as much as they want.

It seems that the new emerging superpowers still have the same victim mentality of a third world country and are unwilling to take on their responsibilities. That’s just not good enough.

dcpolwarth on July 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2