Great news from Down Under

[EdWort]

Hey Ya'll,

I'm back safe & sound from the Pecos Wilderness in New Mexico just catching up on emails & news and came across this little tidbit this morning.

It's good to be back, so lets kick things off on the right foot here in the Chit Chat section.

No smoking hot spot

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.



Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.


So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.


In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.


If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?


The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.


What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

 

[GunnerMan]

Pecos Wilderness is a great place, it's almost like the Alaska wilderness if you get up there this time of year.

You know im not going to sit here and deny "global warming," but I am not sure we are very clear on exactly what it is doing. Is it going to warm up the ice caps and cool down other parts of the world? Is it going to melt the caps and change a few weather paterns? Is it going to give us all massive sunburn when we go outside and kill everything on earth?
It seems everyone you hear has a different outcome or no outcome at all. If global warming is a huge as we are led to belive then there will be huge changes going on. Imo we may for example loose farmland in one region while we gain farmland in another. Some animals will die off/adapt but other species will flourish now.

There is a gigantic push here in the US for energy dependence via renewable recources. Al Gore says 10 years(of course he said 10 years 3 years ago so it's really 7 years for him) to do a 100% change over. Look oil prices are going up, they will probably continue to the point where no one can afford it. At that time people will start to say ahh well lets use these electric cars more. If there is neccessity, if there is a cheaper/more efficiant product out there people will buy it. We are seeing more and more hybrid cars on the road every day here, not because goverment wants it, because people see the need for it.
For the government to give it's people a timetable and tell them we will all be dead if we don't do this in X time when you really don't have mutch evidence behind it is just riddicoulous. Hell I would love to run my house on solar/wind power but my workstations would draw far more power than then solor/wind could produce economicaly. Give me a good alternative before you give me a timetable.

 

[EdWort]

Yep, the climate changes all the time and there's nothing we can do about it but adapt to it.

To think that Man is causing it and actually has the ability to change it is the ultimate arrogance. We've wasted billions of dollars and achieved nothing so far.

What if that money would have been used to help developing nations adapt to the changing climate instead of throwing it down AlGore's black hole?

 

[Laurel]

When dinosaurs were walking the earth in tropical regions of Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, there must have been BILLION of humans driving their cars around creating huge "carbon footprints." Similarly, coming out of the last ice age, there must have been massive carbon ouput to heat the earth so much.

It's ridiculous to think that the natural heating and cooling cycles that the earth undergoes are triggered by humans. Strangely enough, other planets are heating at the same or greater rates than earth(and these planets don't even have people driving around in hummers taking their kids to school), and these heating and cooling cycles are linked to solar activity.

And who is to say that this is the "right" temperature for earth? People are concerned that the temperature is changing, but that presupposes that there is an optimum temperature for earth, and this is it. During the warming period of the middle ages when the earth warmed a few degrees, crop yields rose dramatically, and this allowed for population increase. It's absurd to expect that the temperature of earth is going to remain a constant throughout time, isn't it better that the earth WARMS a little than cools? This should help struggling nations produce enough food to feed their populations, even more important given the shift towards organic fuel sources other than oil.

 

[Dr Vorlauf]

+1 .......

 

[EdWort]

And who is to say that this is the "right" temperature for earth

People who want want to cripple the economy and blame it on capitalism. It's their new "religion" all in the interest of control, power, and money.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

I absolutley believe that global warming exists, I just don't think that humans are responsible for it. Fossil fuels may speed the process up by a couple of hundred years, which is nothing on the timescale that I'm talking about (millions of years).

 

[BigKahuna]

I absolutley believe that global warming exists, I just don't think that humans are responsible for it.

and I'm not sure it's a bad thing. in Eastern Colorado, we are in the middle of the worst drought since the dust bowl days. A little rain forest climate couldn't hurt us a bit. And with the way people are repr0ducing like Rabbits, we have more and more people to feed on an ever shrinking land base. (The more people, the more houses= less farm ground)
A longer growing season and more plentiful rainfall could be God (or mother nature, or whatever you believe in) making sure we are able to sustain the additional population.

 

[adrock]

Ed, I think you're losing your touch. It's almost been 1.5 hours since you started this thread and no one's crushing your logic. The EdWort I know would have had this thread locked by now!

I'm afraid I have to disappoint you further by agreeing. There is clearly evidence of global warming. I'm no climatologist, but there is enough data in the public realm to reasonably come to this conclusion. But as has been stated here numerous times, I don't believe there's enough (or perhaps any) publicly available evidence to prove it's caused by human carbon emissions.

As a man of science myself, If I made the kinds of correlations without real evidence that Al Gore and other alarmists have made at my place of work, I'd be laughed out of the room. For example, every day I take a dump the sun rises.......Does that mean my bowel movements are crucial to the Earth's continued rotation? Just because two things appear to happen at the same time does not make them a cause-and-effect relationship.

 

[GunnerMan]

BigKahuna thats exactly what im trying to say, maybe this "global warming thing" isint such a bad event afterall. Our monsoon season here in NM this year is going very very strong. Just had our house flooded a bit actually. You know people like Al Gore are going to keep saying 10 years left untill they die and no one will point out hmm he was saying 10 years 30 years ago.

 

[EdWort]

Every day I take a dump the sun rises.......Does that mean my bowel movements are crucial to the Earth's continued rotation?

Yes! PLEASE DON'T STOP!

I'm going to write my congressman to introduce a bill to add a special tax to the sale of Belgian Budweiser to fund food and roughage for adrock to ensure the continued flowage of his bowels, thus saving humanity from an assured demise should blockage ever occur at Sunrise.

 

[blacklab]

Ed, I think you're losing your touch. It's almost been 1.5 hours since you started this thread and no one's crushing your logic. The EdWort I know would have had this thread locked by now!

I'm afraid I have to disappoint you further by agreeing. There is clearly evidence of global warming. I'm no climatologist, but there is enough data in the public realm to reasonably come to this conclusion. But as has been stated here numerous times, I don't believe there's enough (or perhaps any) publicly available evidence to prove it's caused by human carbon emissions.

As a man of science myself, If I made the kinds of correlations without real evidence that Al Gore and other alarmists have made at my place of work, I'd be laughed out of the room. For example, every day I take a dump the sun rises.......Does that mean my bowel movements are crucial to the Earth's continued rotation? Just because two things appear to happen at the same time does not make them a cause-and-effect relationship.

Phew. Good thing I'm regular, wouldn't want to mess anything up!

If you read this book by Bill Bryson he discusses the many radical changes that the Earth has gone through in it's geologic history, long before there were cars or smog. In some cases the Earth has gone into either extreme greenhouse states or global winters in less than 100 years. I'm sure that global warming is real, and that it is happening, but I doubt that we could be affecting it's progress that much, given what's been documented in our planet's tumulutous past.

 

[adrock]

Thanks for the support folks. I'm now accepting personal donations to support my regularity, and consequently the continued existence of all human life on Earth. PM me if you're interested in continuing life on this planet. :cross:

I'm off to watch "The Dark Knight" for the 2nd time. Later!

 

[EdWort]

 

[k1v1116]

I dont understand what you're arguing about, people are creating co2 and other gasses that cause a greenhouse effect whether or not its responsible for the current climate change is irrelevant. sooner or later its going to cause a problem if it isnt already. I assume most of you would like humanity to be around for a few more thousand years at least, most of the technology we use now is dependent on non-renewable sources, for long term survival we still have to do something and its better to start now.
About the economy, it adapts too. I dont think the push for renewable/carbon neutral energy is going to hurt our economy in the long run. If you look at all the companies that are already marketing "green" as a brand I think things will be alright.

 

[Evan!]

When dinosaurs were walking the earth in tropical regions of Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, there must have been BILLION of humans driving their cars around creating huge "carbon footprints." Similarly, coming out of the last ice age, there must have been massive carbon ouput to heat the earth so much.

It's ridiculous to think that the natural heating and cooling cycles that the earth undergoes are triggered by humans. Strangely enough, other planets are heating at the same or greater rates than earth(and these planets don't even have people driving around in hummers taking their kids to school), and these heating and cooling cycles are linked to solar activity.

And who is to say that this is the "right" temperature for earth? People are concerned that the temperature is changing, but that presupposes that there is an optimum temperature for earth, and this is it. During the warming period of the middle ages when the earth warmed a few degrees, crop yields rose dramatically, and this allowed for population increase. It's absurd to expect that the temperature of earth is going to remain a constant throughout time, isn't it better that the earth WARMS a little than cools? This should help struggling nations produce enough food to feed their populations, even more important given the shift towards organic fuel sources other than oil.

There is no one "right" temperature for the earth, but there is an optimal global pattern of temperatures that our current way of life is built entirely upon, and that the current ecosystem has evolved to depend on. Whatever happens, the biological community will evolve and adapt to receive it, but I believe that the point is that humanity needs to look out for its own habitat. For instance, global temps could rise by 50 degrees tomorrow, and plenty of organisms would survive, but it would surely suck for most of them, including us.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Sure, it is quite possible that carbon emmissions are not causing any alteration in the natural climate changes. It is also possible that they are. The point is, no one knows yet. One thing we do know however is that coal burning, gas fumes etc alter the balance of the air we breath. I have to smoke 25 feet from any building in Ohio simply because scientists made up a load of "Statistics" to prove a point on behalf of their benefactors, yet all the pollution from cars, trucks and power stations is easily acceptable?

I see no good reason why, in the lack of evidence against man-made global warming that we should simply carry on headlong down the road of depleting our fossil fuels without making a MAJOR effort to put the research into renewable resources such as solar, wind and hydro power.

America has latched onto a "For us or against us" mentality regarding fuel and power which is frankly not doing anyone any good.

 

[EdWort]

I see no good reason why, in the lack of evidence against man-made global warming that we should simply carry on headlong down the road of depleting our fossil fuels without making a MAJOR effort to put the research into renewable resources such as solar, wind and hydro power.

True, but I also see no reason why we should allow ourselves to be taxed into a recession for some boneheaded idea by people with a 100% track record of being WRONG because people do not see the ulterior motive behind the scam.

Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, fascism, and Socialism have failed miserably. If you look under the covers of these "Environmentalists", you will find a majority of them are the before mentioned losers continuing to work to bring down capitalism and the American economy along with it.

 

[Evan!]

True, but I also see no reason why we should allow ourselves to be taxed into a recession for some boneheaded idea by people with a 100% track record of being WRONG because people do not see the ulterior motive behind the scam.

Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, fascism, and Socialism have failed miserably. If you look under the covers of these "Environmentalists", you will find a majority of them are the before mentioned losers continuing to work to bring down capitalism and the American economy along with it.

I'm of the mindset that nothing matters but the goddamned facts, wherever they happen to lie. I'm sick and goddamned tired of distractions on both sides, and questioning the motives of the other side is more of the same tripe. It's like f*cking high school. You show me some ****ing evidence, and as much as I hate a socialist, I'll side with him if the evidence supports it.

You do not do anyone any justice by engaging in ad hominem attacks, because that's exactly what the "other side" does too. They paint anyone who doesn't agree with their environmentalist agenda as corporate apologizers who just want to be able to drive their land yachts around. Meanwhile, the staunch deniers paint anyone who thinks differently from them as hippies, communists, socialists, etc. It's patently irresponsible on both sides, and I'm sick and goddamned tired of it! It's exactly this kind of ********* polarization that leads to the "with us or against us", digging-in-the-trenches kind of crap that plagues this debate incessantly. Either you're a hippie socialist who believes in global warming, or you're an SUV-driving corporate apologist who doesn't. Who exactly is served by these foolish stereotypes? WTF do motivations really matter? Why can't we look at the facts, rather than these meaningless association games?

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

True, but I also see no reason why we should allow ourselves to be taxed into a recession for some boneheaded idea by people with a 100% track record of being WRONG because people do not see the ulterior motive behind the scam.

Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, fascism, and Socialism have failed miserably. If you look under the covers of these "Environmentalists", you will find a majority of them are the before mentioned losers continuing to work to bring down capitalism and the American economy along with it.

Are we still in the 50's? I understand your point about "Liberals" ( I prefer the literal meaning of the word in which it means open minded) But using ecology to bring down America? Maybe that could be a by-product if the US remains steadfast in the support of our oil-based economy, but I think it is a huge leap to think that sometime in the early seventies this plan was hatched to overturn capitalism. I think you are crediting the hard core left tree huggers with a little more intelligence than they deserve.

 

[s3n8]

To think that Man is causing it and actually has the ability to change it is the ultimate arrogance. We've wasted billions of dollars and achieved nothing so far.

Really? You think all of the pollution we have pumped into the atmosphere has had no impact on the climate? Wow. To me that sounds arrogant.

And for the second sentence... Are you still talking about climate change, or did you mistakenly type in some thoughts about the Iraq war?

 

[s3n8]

People who want want to cripple the economy and blame it on capitalism. It's their new "religion" all in the interest of control, power, and money.

Research and development of clean alternatives to oil and coal will cripple the economy? Uh. Um. Are you an oil man Ed? Do you think we should continue to be held hostage by the mess in the middle east? Or maybe try to find a better alternative.

If anything it will create jobs. Think of all the good jobs we could create building out a new energy infrastructure to support hydrogen cars or building solar energy plants.

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

I'm of the mindset that nothing matters but the goddamned facts, wherever they happen to lie. I'm sick and goddamned tired of distractions on both sides, and questioning the motives of the other side is more of the same tripe. It's like f*cking high school. You show me some ****ing evidence, and as much as I hate a socialist, I'll side with him if the evidence supports it.

You do not do anyone any justice by engaging in ad hominem attacks, because that's exactly what the "other side" does too. They paint anyone who doesn't agree with their environmentalist agenda as corporate apologizers who just want to be able to drive their land yachts around. Meanwhile, the staunch deniers paint anyone who thinks differently from them as hippies, communists, socialists, etc. It's patently irresponsible on both sides, and I'm sick and goddamned tired of it! It's exactly this kind of ********* polarization that leads to the "with us or against us", digging-in-the-trenches kind of crap that plagues this debate incessantly. Either you're a hippie socialist who believes in global warming, or you're an SUV-driving corporate apologist who doesn't. Who exactly is served by these foolish stereotypes? WTF do motivations really matter? Why can't we look at the facts, rather than these meaningless association games?

Wow!! I wish I'd written that!! right there!!! I liked it so much I stole the credit in the quote!

 

[noisy123]

Global warming anti-alarmists:
Instead of claiming an expertise in climatology, environmental chemistry, geology, ecology, etc... why not pretend to have a grasp of theoretical mathematics, its equally as complex and the average person has just a little chance of understanding the argument. You could start with the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. There's a million bucks in it for you (and probably a Field's Medal) if you happen to be right:
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/navierstokes.pdf

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Global warming anti-alarmists:
Instead of claiming an expertise in climatology, environmental chemistry, geology, ecology, etc... why not pretend to have a grasp of theoretical mathematics, its equally as complex and the average person has just a little chance of understanding the argument. You could start with the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. There's a million bucks in it for you (and probably a Field's Medal) if you happen to be right:
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/navierstokes.pdf

Oh Great! Now I feel dumber than a sackful of hammers!! Back to normal, in other words. My universe is centered once again!

 

[EdWort]

Research and development of clean alternatives to oil and coal will cripple the economy? .

Nope, but legislating carbon caps will.

 

[EdWort]

Global warming anti-alarmists

No, there are no "anti" alarmists. Just folks who can see through the GW alarmists ruse.

We all want clean air and such, and we've led the world in making that happen, so don't go there cause that does not work with the GW carbon scam.

The world has warmed and cooled long before man and his industry. We won't change that cycle no matter how many carbon credits AlGore sells.

 

[k1v1116]

you do understand that the fuels we use now, mostly oil and coal come from the remains of animals and plants that helped transform the earth from its early stages with a fair amount of co2, and oxygen bound up in other forms into what we have today. If hypothetically we burned all the coal and oil in the planet things would return to a state inhospitable to human life, of course things could never go that far but even without evidence to support man made greenhouse gasses as the current cause of climate change I hope you're not disputing that if we continue to burn oil and coal indefinitely it will cause global warming.

 

[EdWort]

you do understand that the fuels we use now, mostly oil and coal come from the remains of animals and plants that helped transform the earth from its early stages with a fair amount of co2, and oxygen bound up in other forms into what we have today. If hypothetically we burned all the coal and oil in the planet things would return to a state inhospitable to human life, of course things could never go that far but even without evidence to support man made greenhouse gasses as the current cause of climate change I hope you're not disputing that if we continue to burn oil and coal indefinitely it will cause global warming.

Is that a proven fact? I don't believe so as we keep finding more and more of them, but our illustrious Congress won't let us tap them.

 

[Evan!]

The world has warmed and cooled long before man and his industry..

The inherent ignorance in that statement is astounding. Whether or not the earth has been warming and cooling before us has absolutely no (let me restate: ABSOLUTELY NO) bearing on whether manmade carbon emissions are causing it to warm now. I'm not saying they are...because all the facts aren't in. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter whether the world has had the same climate for the past million years, or whether it oscillates every thousand years.

Let's put this in perspective: let's say, every once in awhile, at random, a bunch of bees descend on your yard. No rhyme or reason, they just do. It happens in varying intervals, with no obvious cause that you're able to see. So one day, someone with malicious intent comes and unleashes a bunch of bees in your yard on purpose. This time, it's obviously his fault. But you didn't see him do it. Would the fact that it's been happening intermittently outside the hand of man have any bearing on whether or not this particular incident was caused by someone? No. Of course not.

What I'm saying is, this current warming trend may or may not be caused by mankind; however, the fact that it has happened in the past is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not we are actually causing it. I prefer to rely on the data, rather than just assume it's history repeating itself.

 

[Evan!]

Is that a proven fact? I don't believe so as we keep finding more and more of them, but our illustrious Congress won't let us tap them.

So explain to me why the oil companies have all those unexplored drilling areas, on and off coast, that they haven't touched, yet they're clamoring for more. Why's that? Hey, if there's a bunch of oil out there, by all means, let's check it out. But as it stands, there are thousands of sites that the oil companies have access to, that remain untapped. And people act like opening up all those offshore sites will fix everything. Sounds like a 5 year old who gets a bunch of cool toys, but he wants THOSE toys, the ones that his brother is playing with, because, well, screw these toys.

Wouldn't it make at least a bit of sense to check out the sites they already have rights to before whining about getting more sites? I'm not saying it's right to restrict drilling rights, but I am saying that all the harping on getting "new" drilling rights is absurd given all the currently untapped sites that they have access to.

Find a new mantra.

 

[FlyingHorse]

Whether or not the earth has been warming and cooling before us has absolutely no (let me restate: ABSOLUTELY NO) bearing on whether manmade carbon emissions are causing it to warm now.

I'm reasonably confident that there's scientific evidence somewhere that proves: forest fires occurred before man walked the earth. Therefore, man cannot cause forest fires.

Evan, is that really so hard for you to grasp? , or maybe

EDIT: forgot the smiley. Don;t want anyone taking this literally.

 

[z987k]

Is that a proven fact? I don't believe so as we keep finding more and more of them, but our illustrious Congress won't let us tap them.

what are you questioning there? The fact that dead animals and trees over thousands of years and pressure and a bunch of other stuff = oil and coal and other hydrocarbons, or that if ALL of the hydrocarbons were suddenly released in a gaseous form, we would have something like Venus #2?
Cause both are facts. I'm sure you can find an experiment where you use various hydrocarbons to trap various forms of energy.

 

[adrock]

I'm all for reducing and eventually eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels.

Bearing that in mind, I think it could be a big mistake to rally the support to accomplish this task behind Al Gore and his ilk. It is still debatable whether our current fossil fuel usage causes global warming: So if environmental alarmists gain the support they need to actually affect change, and they're proven wrong that support will quickly evaporate.

What is not debatable is that it's best for the U.S. (and the world) to produce efficient, sustainable energy sources with renewable energy. The volatility in the energy market is due in large part to scarcity of petroleum products, whether real or perceived. When we find alternative energy production methods free of this scarcity mindset, energy will become cheap and will flood the market.

As an added bonus, the U.S. won't be at the mercy of the most unstable political region in the world. Why can't this be enough reason for us to get together and do something about it? Aren't we tired of being the biggest foreign policy hypocrisy ever? Buying oil from dictatorships and monarchies and strengthening their finances is not the best way to get them to change their political system.

 

[Pabst Blue Robot]

Ed, your implication that it would be arrogant to assume that mankind could potentially impact the global climate is a touch off base. The looming menace of nuclear winter throughout the cold war is a reasonable example of how we could destabilize the planet's climate. Such periods have occurred in the past as a result of forces the likes of which we have the technological ability to conjur the effects of (vulcanism for example.)

Further, while the meat of your argument about correlation and causation makes sense, it is a red herring here as you offer nothing to disprove the hypothesis nor do you offer any other evidence to explain observations at the core of the global warming theory. You're merely rallying support with blanket generalizations and trying to present a black and white political situation. While carbon laws do have negative economic impact, I would challenge you to prove that they are the leading cause of US economic recession--or even remotely close.

 

[Reverend JC]

Yep, the climate changes all the time and there's nothing we can do about it but adapt to it.

To think that Man is causing it and actually has the ability to change it is the ultimate arrogance. We've wasted billions of dollars and achieved nothing so far.

What if that money would have been used to help developing nations adapt to the changing climate instead of throwing it down AlGore's black hole?

Here Here!!!!

 

[BigKahuna]

my question:
If the oil comes from dinosaurs, why is it thousands of feet underground, and the fossils are reasonably close to the surface?

 

[Reverend JC]

So explain to me why the oil companies have all those unexplored drilling areas, on and off coast, that they haven't touched, yet they're clamoring for more. Why's that? Hey, if there's a bunch of oil out there, by all means, let's check it out. But as it stands, there are thousands of sites that the oil companies have access to, that remain untapped. And people act like opening up all those offshore sites will fix everything. Sounds like a 5 year old who gets a bunch of cool toys, but he wants THOSE toys, the ones that his brother is playing with, because, well, screw these toys.

Wouldn't it make at least a bit of sense to check out the sites they already have rights to before whining about getting more sites? I'm not saying it's right to restrict drilling rights, but I am saying that all the harping on getting "new" drilling rights is absurd given all the currently untapped sites that they have access to.

Find a new mantra.

Sorry about the double post, just read this gem.

When they (the big mean nasty oil companies) buy or lease rather land to look for oil on they do so with a good idea it is in at least one area of the plot they lease. Keep in mind, one lease can cover 100s of thousands of square miles. So yes, they do have areas they have not drilled in, but just because they own lease to the land dosent meant there is oil under the whole plot.
The enviromentalists would have you think that the oil companies are not drilling on the land they have leased now, but that is just no the case. If the oil companies are as greedy as people make them out to be then why would they not be tapping that land left and right. Because the amounts they have found to be there are not cost effective to drill for.

 

[EdWort]

What I'm saying is, this current warming trend may or may not be caused by mankind; however, the fact that it has happened in the past is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not we are actually causing it. I prefer to rely on the data, rather than just assume it's history repeating itself.

The point is where is the proof that man is causing the warming? The cycle is already there when we were not around and I believe it will be here when we are gone. Relying on data for a logical conclusion is good, provided the data has to been skewed as it has in the past.

 

[Reverend JC]

While carbon laws do have negative economic impact, I would challenge you to prove that they are the leading cause of US economic recession--or even remotely close.

Really?

Do you remember when our good buddy Al Gore said Gas should be 5 bucks a gallon? he said it needed to happen according to him to save our planet from ourselves.

if you ask me, he said it needed to happen so he could sell carbon offsets.