The Global Warming Bubble

[HAL 9000 96]

You'd better hope so...

The planet has had mass extinction events before...

Unless a giant comet hits us I doubt if we are going anywhere anytime soon. We survived ice ages and periods warmer than this. GW is just another change.

Actually - the theory is that most of the mass extinction events in the planet's history were linked to greenhouse phases.

I actually disagree... there were other mass extinctions not related to greenhouse gases but the BIG ones I do remember being directly related to such phenomena. We need to remember that we are not exactly independent of the food chain and we can't sustain a population on hot air.

[kerewin21 2]

Can we put a moratorium on GaryC posting anti global warming articles? I think we get it by now. GaryC doesn't believe in global warming. I think we've also established that the vast majority of the scientific community *does* believe in global warming. We're just wasting electrons with this constant back and forth.

Hmm.... I can't post global warming stories, I can't post Obama stories. I can see that everything is fine as long as I don't ruffle the feathers of those that disagree with me. Maybe you would be happy with a forum filled with kitten threads?Censorship is alive and well.

I have no problem with you posting these stories, but could you limit it to maybe once a week? Pick out one really good one each week and post it. I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm just pointing out that this discussion has been had over and over again and the point that you think global warming is a load of ####### has been made over and over again. The point that others, myself included, don't think it's a load of ####### has also been made over and over again.

[HAL 9000 96]

The Global Warming Bubble

By Rich Lowry

Rarely has so much hectoring produced so little.

After all the magazine covers, celebrity sermonizing and U.N.-certified-expert hand-wringing, the fight against global warming got a real-world test in the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago in the debate over a proposal to limit carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system. After a small dose of the argument, supporters of the proposal couldn't wait to drop it. It was leading opponent Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, who declared he'd be happy to talk about cap-and-trade for a month.

As an indirect tax on carbon, cap-and-trade would increase energy prices when people are already straining under $4-a-gallon gas. Even a political naif -- which McConnell assuredly is not -- would realize the benefit of hanging the proposal around its supporters' necks. Lately, we've seen the tech and housing bubbles burst, and now -- at least as an urgent political issue -- the global-warming bubble is getting pricked.

Let's count the ways: First, those gas prices. They are just one way that the soaring price of oil has put a crimp in the standard of living of Americans. They have little taste for seeing it crimped more, and why should they? The cost-benefit analysis of battling global warming is never going to make sense for Americans.

The places that would be hurt by global warming tend to be warm, wet, and low-lying. Think Bangladesh. For the U.S., warming isn't much of a threat. So, stringent measures against global warming are really a massive foreign-aid program, but an intangible and speculative one. If the predicted warming materializes, and if it has the drastic effects warned about (e.g., big rises in sea levels), people living in faraway countries a century or more from now may be adversely affected -- in short, a theoretical benefit to people as yet unborn.

We should feel a moral obligation to aid Bangladesh and similar places with mitigation measures, when (and, again, if) the time comes. Until then, our consciences should rest easy, given the $20 billion annually we spend on development assistance, including billions of dollars fighting AIDS, malaria, and other diseases affecting people whose suffering isn't theoretical.

Second, there's China. It has passed the U.S. as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, and it accounted for two-thirds of the increase in the world's emissions in 2007. Global action against global warming makes little sense without China taking part, and it won't. If we can't get China to quit jailing dissidents and arming a genocidal Sudan, what hope is there of getting it to stop something -- rapid economic development -- that's otherwise unobjectionable? With hundreds of millions of Chinese people living in abject poverty, the country's economic growth is one of the world's most important initiatives against human misery.

Finally, there's the global-cooling spell. The world hasn't been warming since 1998, and an article in the journal Nature says warming won't pick up again until 2015. Since global warming is a long-term trend, a decade-long or more stall in temperatures doesn't mean much -- except that environmentalists have banked so much politically on whipping up hysteria based on imminent catastrophe. The stall in temperatures shows how little we know about global warming. It means that the .3 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures predicted during the next decade by the U.N.'s much-vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen.

No matter what the price of gas is, the most sensible policy in the U.S. is to avoid costly schemes to fight global warming. If our economy keeps growing, we will be better positioned -- richer, and more technologically proficient -- to help others mitigate its effects decades from now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid huffs that global warming is "the most critical issue of our time." Really? More critical than energy prices? Than health care? Than wages? Than terrorism? Than nuclear proliferation? Keep huffing, Mr. Reid -- that deflating bubble needs all the air it can get.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_bubble.html

Well as bubbles go - the author seems to be living in one himself, if he seriously thinks that we shouldn't care about the state of the environment so long as it doesn't pose some sort of direct threat to us.

That would be like a person who lives at the top of the hill saying "flood defences are a waste of money as we're not in any danger, but if you guys at the bottom get flooded out - we've got a few tins of beans and some spare blankets you can have".

Plus, being one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases, I think its more of a matter of proper foreign policy on our side- IF you want to take it as a matter of us and them.

China just passed us up. India will soon follow. It does not make any difference what we do. We cannot make them stop.

Imagine that. Don't be so fatalistic. Just because they don't do it yet doesn't mean we don't have to use experience to lead.

[GaryC 7]

Can we put a moratorium on GaryC posting anti global warming articles? I think we get it by now. GaryC doesn't believe in global warming. I think we've also established that the vast majority of the scientific community *does* believe in global warming. We're just wasting electrons with this constant back and forth.

Hmm.... I can't post global warming stories, I can't post Obama stories. I can see that everything is fine as long as I don't ruffle the feathers of those that disagree with me. Maybe you would be happy with a forum filled with kitten threads?Censorship is alive and well.

I have no problem with you posting these stories, but could you limit it to maybe once a week? Pick out one really good one each week and post it. I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm just pointing out that this discussion has been had over and over again and the point that you think global warming is a load of ####### has been made over and over again. The point that others, myself included, don't think it's a load of ####### has also been made over and over again.

FYI, this is the first GW story that I have posted since 7 may. Look it up.

[GaryC 7]

The Global Warming Bubble

By Rich Lowry

Rarely has so much hectoring produced so little.

After all the magazine covers, celebrity sermonizing and U.N.-certified-expert hand-wringing, the fight against global warming got a real-world test in the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago in the debate over a proposal to limit carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system. After a small dose of the argument, supporters of the proposal couldn't wait to drop it. It was leading opponent Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, who declared he'd be happy to talk about cap-and-trade for a month.

As an indirect tax on carbon, cap-and-trade would increase energy prices when people are already straining under $4-a-gallon gas. Even a political naif -- which McConnell assuredly is not -- would realize the benefit of hanging the proposal around its supporters' necks. Lately, we've seen the tech and housing bubbles burst, and now -- at least as an urgent political issue -- the global-warming bubble is getting pricked.

Let's count the ways: First, those gas prices. They are just one way that the soaring price of oil has put a crimp in the standard of living of Americans. They have little taste for seeing it crimped more, and why should they? The cost-benefit analysis of battling global warming is never going to make sense for Americans.

The places that would be hurt by global warming tend to be warm, wet, and low-lying. Think Bangladesh. For the U.S., warming isn't much of a threat. So, stringent measures against global warming are really a massive foreign-aid program, but an intangible and speculative one. If the predicted warming materializes, and if it has the drastic effects warned about (e.g., big rises in sea levels), people living in faraway countries a century or more from now may be adversely affected -- in short, a theoretical benefit to people as yet unborn.

We should feel a moral obligation to aid Bangladesh and similar places with mitigation measures, when (and, again, if) the time comes. Until then, our consciences should rest easy, given the $20 billion annually we spend on development assistance, including billions of dollars fighting AIDS, malaria, and other diseases affecting people whose suffering isn't theoretical.

Second, there's China. It has passed the U.S. as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, and it accounted for two-thirds of the increase in the world's emissions in 2007. Global action against global warming makes little sense without China taking part, and it won't. If we can't get China to quit jailing dissidents and arming a genocidal Sudan, what hope is there of getting it to stop something -- rapid economic development -- that's otherwise unobjectionable? With hundreds of millions of Chinese people living in abject poverty, the country's economic growth is one of the world's most important initiatives against human misery.

Finally, there's the global-cooling spell. The world hasn't been warming since 1998, and an article in the journal Nature says warming won't pick up again until 2015. Since global warming is a long-term trend, a decade-long or more stall in temperatures doesn't mean much -- except that environmentalists have banked so much politically on whipping up hysteria based on imminent catastrophe. The stall in temperatures shows how little we know about global warming. It means that the .3 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures predicted during the next decade by the U.N.'s much-vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen.

No matter what the price of gas is, the most sensible policy in the U.S. is to avoid costly schemes to fight global warming. If our economy keeps growing, we will be better positioned -- richer, and more technologically proficient -- to help others mitigate its effects decades from now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid huffs that global warming is "the most critical issue of our time." Really? More critical than energy prices? Than health care? Than wages? Than terrorism? Than nuclear proliferation? Keep huffing, Mr. Reid -- that deflating bubble needs all the air it can get.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_bubble.html

Well as bubbles go - the author seems to be living in one himself, if he seriously thinks that we shouldn't care about the state of the environment so long as it doesn't pose some sort of direct threat to us.

That would be like a person who lives at the top of the hill saying "flood defences are a waste of money as we're not in any danger, but if you guys at the bottom get flooded out - we've got a few tins of beans and some spare blankets you can have".

Plus, being one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases, I think its more of a matter of proper foreign policy on our side- IF you want to take it as a matter of us and them.

China just passed us up. India will soon follow. It does not make any difference what we do. We cannot make them stop.

Imagine that. Don't be so fatalistic. Just because they don't do it yet doesn't mean we don't have to use experience to lead.

Right, ruin our economy with useless measures that will not change anything. What's the point in that?

Before you howl, I don't mean conservation or alternative energy. I mean carbon taxes and new regulation on carbon. We can't get China to do anything China doesn't want to do. Same goes for India. Face it, if man made GW is true then it's going to happen. Better to prepare for it than to try and stop the inevitable. If it isn't true then we are wasting our time and money. Either way, what we are doing now in regards to carbon is useless.

[HAL 9000 96]

Can we put a moratorium on GaryC posting anti global warming articles? I think we get it by now. GaryC doesn't believe in global warming. I think we've also established that the vast majority of the scientific community *does* believe in global warming. We're just wasting electrons with this constant back and forth.

Hmm.... I can't post global warming stories, I can't post Obama stories. I can see that everything is fine as long as I don't ruffle the feathers of those that disagree with me. Maybe you would be happy with a forum filled with kitten threads?Censorship is alive and well.

I have no problem with you posting these stories, but could you limit it to maybe once a week? Pick out one really good one each week and post it. I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm just pointing out that this discussion has been had over and over again and the point that you think global warming is a load of ####### has been made over and over again. The point that others, myself included, don't think it's a load of ####### has also been made over and over again.

FYI, this is the first GW story that I have posted since 7 may. Look it up.

FYI... I go on vacation in a couple of weeks... you can have all the time in the world to post all you want without my input, if it makes you feel better.

The Global Warming Bubble

By Rich Lowry

Rarely has so much hectoring produced so little.

After all the magazine covers, celebrity sermonizing and U.N.-certified-expert hand-wringing, the fight against global warming got a real-world test in the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago in the debate over a proposal to limit carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system. After a small dose of the argument, supporters of the proposal couldn't wait to drop it. It was leading opponent Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, who declared he'd be happy to talk about cap-and-trade for a month.

As an indirect tax on carbon, cap-and-trade would increase energy prices when people are already straining under $4-a-gallon gas. Even a political naif -- which McConnell assuredly is not -- would realize the benefit of hanging the proposal around its supporters' necks. Lately, we've seen the tech and housing bubbles burst, and now -- at least as an urgent political issue -- the global-warming bubble is getting pricked.

Let's count the ways: First, those gas prices. They are just one way that the soaring price of oil has put a crimp in the standard of living of Americans. They have little taste for seeing it crimped more, and why should they? The cost-benefit analysis of battling global warming is never going to make sense for Americans.

The places that would be hurt by global warming tend to be warm, wet, and low-lying. Think Bangladesh. For the U.S., warming isn't much of a threat. So, stringent measures against global warming are really a massive foreign-aid program, but an intangible and speculative one. If the predicted warming materializes, and if it has the drastic effects warned about (e.g., big rises in sea levels), people living in faraway countries a century or more from now may be adversely affected -- in short, a theoretical benefit to people as yet unborn.

We should feel a moral obligation to aid Bangladesh and similar places with mitigation measures, when (and, again, if) the time comes. Until then, our consciences should rest easy, given the $20 billion annually we spend on development assistance, including billions of dollars fighting AIDS, malaria, and other diseases affecting people whose suffering isn't theoretical.

Second, there's China. It has passed the U.S. as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, and it accounted for two-thirds of the increase in the world's emissions in 2007. Global action against global warming makes little sense without China taking part, and it won't. If we can't get China to quit jailing dissidents and arming a genocidal Sudan, what hope is there of getting it to stop something -- rapid economic development -- that's otherwise unobjectionable? With hundreds of millions of Chinese people living in abject poverty, the country's economic growth is one of the world's most important initiatives against human misery.

Finally, there's the global-cooling spell. The world hasn't been warming since 1998, and an article in the journal Nature says warming won't pick up again until 2015. Since global warming is a long-term trend, a decade-long or more stall in temperatures doesn't mean much -- except that environmentalists have banked so much politically on whipping up hysteria based on imminent catastrophe. The stall in temperatures shows how little we know about global warming. It means that the .3 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures predicted during the next decade by the U.N.'s much-vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen.

No matter what the price of gas is, the most sensible policy in the U.S. is to avoid costly schemes to fight global warming. If our economy keeps growing, we will be better positioned -- richer, and more technologically proficient -- to help others mitigate its effects decades from now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid huffs that global warming is "the most critical issue of our time." Really? More critical than energy prices? Than health care? Than wages? Than terrorism? Than nuclear proliferation? Keep huffing, Mr. Reid -- that deflating bubble needs all the air it can get.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_bubble.html

Well as bubbles go - the author seems to be living in one himself, if he seriously thinks that we shouldn't care about the state of the environment so long as it doesn't pose some sort of direct threat to us.

That would be like a person who lives at the top of the hill saying "flood defences are a waste of money as we're not in any danger, but if you guys at the bottom get flooded out - we've got a few tins of beans and some spare blankets you can have".

Plus, being one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases, I think its more of a matter of proper foreign policy on our side- IF you want to take it as a matter of us and them.

China just passed us up. India will soon follow. It does not make any difference what we do. We cannot make them stop.

Imagine that. Don't be so fatalistic. Just because they don't do it yet doesn't mean we don't have to use experience to lead.

Right, ruin our economy with useless measures that will not change anything. What's the point in that?

Before you howl, I don't mean conservation or alternative energy. I mean carbon taxes and new regulation on carbon. We can't get China to do anything China doesn't want to do. Same goes for India. Face it, if man made GW is true then it's going to happen. Better to prepare for it than to try and stop the inevitable. If it isn't true then we are wasting our time and money. Either way, what we are doing now in regards to carbon is useless.

Imagine how the countries that actually have followed through on Kyoto felt when we failed to get on board to lead.

Perhaps its ruining the economy now for you. Most will consider it an investment in a better future. Hint- innovators tend to get copied soon therafter.

[Aubrey 10]

China just passed us up. India will soon follow. It does not make any difference what we do. We cannot make them stop.

If we all followed your logic in life, every time something got worse it'd be okay if we added to it.. the ole' if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Are you from the backwoods?

How about if we can't control what China and India are doing we provide the EXAMPLE for them so they know how to change. We have the means to do much better than we are. Not just for the environment, but for protecting our long term energy future. That requires reducing our consumption and producing it responsibly. Even if you don't believe the scientific community about man-induced global warming, you should at least acknowledge that localized air pollution from burning fossil fuels isn't healthy for anyone. Even if it "blows away" from your city by a cold front, someone has to breathe it. It doesn't disappear. That's just not ethical.

This is not a runaway train.

And to those arguing we should just protect our economy, protecting our environment DOES protect our economy. Global warming doesn't just make it hot. It causes increased fluctuations in the weather patterns -- making dry areas drier and wet areas wetter; hurricanes get stronger; snow storms become blizzards. Katrina was caused by higher than normal temperatures in the Gulf. Events like that are catastrophic on the economy. We should do everything we can to prevent those situations from increasing in frequency, and that involves protecting our environment.

If you expect to continue living on this planet, stop forgetting that you are part of the web of life. You can't destroy the air, the water, the other animals, the bacteria, etc without eventually dying yourself.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You'd better hope so...

The planet has had mass extinction events before...

Unless a giant comet hits us I doubt if we are going anywhere anytime soon. We survived ice ages and periods warmer than this. GW is just another change.

Actually - the theory is that most of the mass extinction events in the planet's history were linked to greenhouse phases.

And all of those happened without the aid of humans. The world climate is bigger than anything we can effect on that kind of scale. If it changes, it changes. We cannot stop it.

This truth should awaken even the most stubborn mind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You'd better hope so...

The planet has had mass extinction events before...

Unless a giant comet hits us I doubt if we are going anywhere anytime soon. We survived ice ages and periods warmer than this. GW is just another change.

Actually - the theory is that most of the mass extinction events in the planet's history were linked to greenhouse phases.

And all of those happened without the aid of humans. The world climate is bigger than anything we can effect on that kind of scale. If it changes, it changes. We cannot stop it.

This truth should awaken even the most stubborn mind.

What that nature can cause catastrophic extinctions?

That doesn't mean that human activities can't accelerate natural processes...

[Steven Shirley 0]

Wow...a political assesment that actually makes sense! Cool. I also seem to recall you were the one who deftly pointed out that if Dems wish to truly help the poor off shore drilling makes great sense compared to deliberatly not use oil we have in our own country and place ourselves at the mercy of middle eastern nations - which are not exactly the most likly candidtates for close friends - except for the huge piles of cash we keep sending them in return for oil.

You aren't running for any office are you? I think I might even muster up enough enthusiasm to make it to the polls for someone as clear thinking as you! Neither of the big parties seems to have a sense of reality...ok enough the political cynisism.

God is AWESOME and He is the one who will eventually fix our collective stupidity...and He has brought me the most AWESOME woman to be my wife!! Those things I truly can get excited and do somthing about!!

[rika60607 215]

This is one of the most insulting articles I've seen lately.

The other one was implying that Americans are so bad at math that they can't figure out how much savings they get if they switch to a car with lower MPGs.

The Global Warming Bubble

Let's count the ways: First, those gas prices. They are just one way that the soaring price of oil has put a crimp in the standard of living of Americans. They have little taste for seeing it crimped more, and why should they? The cost-benefit analysis of battling global warming is never going to make sense for Americans.

Because on average Americans are not very smart, yeah?

Think Bangladesh. For the U.S., warming isn't much of a threat. So, stringent measures against global warming are really a massive foreign-aid program,

And look, Americans are selfish, too

Second, there's China.

If our neighbour is not acting nicely, why should we? How childish!

The world hasn't been warming since 1998...

Yeah, and S. Hussein had nuclear weapons.

If our economy keeps growing,

Hello? Anybody seen any growth lately?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid huffs that global warming is "the most critical issue of our time." Really? More critical than energy prices? Than health care? Than wages? Than terrorism? Than nuclear proliferation?

YES!!! It is!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_bubble.html

[HAL 9000 96]

This is one of the most insulting articles I've seen lately.

The other one was implying that Americans are so bad at math that they can't figure out how much savings they get if they switch to a car with lower MPGs.

The Global Warming Bubble

Let's count the ways: First, those gas prices. They are just one way that the soaring price of oil has put a crimp in the standard of living of Americans. They have little taste for seeing it crimped more, and why should they? The cost-benefit analysis of battling global warming is never going to make sense for Americans.

Because on average Americans are not very smart, yeah?

Think Bangladesh. For the U.S., warming isn't much of a threat. So, stringent measures against global warming are really a massive foreign-aid program,

And look, Americans are selfish, too

Second, there's China.

If our neighbour is not acting nicely, why should we? How childish!

The world hasn't been warming since 1998...

Yeah, and S. Hussein had nuclear weapons.

If our economy keeps growing,

Hello? Anybody seen any growth lately?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid huffs that global warming is "the most critical issue of our time." Really? More critical than energy prices? Than health care? Than wages? Than terrorism? Than nuclear proliferation?

YES!!! It is!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_bubble.html

Well I do know that some folks' math is fuzzy enough to think that (shale deposits not counted) there'd be a short term relief at the pump from drilling the estimated 70-90 billion barrels of reserves we know about in our territory when out current consumption is no less than 20 billion barrels per year.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You'd better hope so...

The planet has had mass extinction events before...

Unless a giant comet hits us I doubt if we are going anywhere anytime soon. We survived ice ages and periods warmer than this. GW is just another change.

Actually - the theory is that most of the mass extinction events in the planet's history were linked to greenhouse phases.

And all of those happened without the aid of humans. The world climate is bigger than anything we can effect on that kind of scale. If it changes, it changes. We cannot stop it.

This truth should awaken even the most stubborn mind.

What that nature can cause catastrophic extinctions?

That doesn't mean that human activities can't accelerate natural processes...

Exactly. There's some real screwed up reasoning in play there. Following that line of reasoning, we'd be tempted to say that because wildfires flared up before man was around and still do without man actually causing them we know that man does not or even cannot cause wildfires. Some folks...

[HAL 9000 96]

You'd better hope so...

The planet has had mass extinction events before...

Unless a giant comet hits us I doubt if we are going anywhere anytime soon. We survived ice ages and periods warmer than this. GW is just another change.

Actually - the theory is that most of the mass extinction events in the planet's history were linked to greenhouse phases.

And all of those happened without the aid of humans. The world climate is bigger than anything we can effect on that kind of scale. If it changes, it changes. We cannot stop it.

This truth should awaken even the most stubborn mind.

What that nature can cause catastrophic extinctions?

That doesn't mean that human activities can't accelerate natural processes...

Exactly. There's some real screwed up reasoning in play there. Following that line of reasoning, we'd be tempted to say that because wildfires flared up before man was around and still do without man actually causing them we know that man does not or even cannot cause wildfires. Some folks...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You'd better hope so...

The planet has had mass extinction events before...

Unless a giant comet hits us I doubt if we are going anywhere anytime soon. We survived ice ages and periods warmer than this. GW is just another change.

Actually - the theory is that most of the mass extinction events in the planet's history were linked to greenhouse phases.

And all of those happened without the aid of humans. The world climate is bigger than anything we can effect on that kind of scale. If it changes, it changes. We cannot stop it.

This truth should awaken even the most stubborn mind.

What that nature can cause catastrophic extinctions?

That doesn't mean that human activities can't accelerate natural processes...

Or decelerate. I'd rather have higher seas than another ice age. Your gonna need more than an SUV when 1/3 of North America is glacial.