Cap and Trade isnt really Satan's New Tax.

[Parker2112]

(In response to a poster claiming that Cap and Trade is going to tax us to hell...I thought everyone might benefit from the discussion)

Why would the govt spend so readily to get us out of an economic depression, then tax to put us back into one? It doesnt happen like that. Forget what you read at the Valero.

The info you are getting is coming from wealthy powerful sources who are going to be forced to update operations with new cleaner equipment, industries who are still operating with factories and technologies from the 50's and 60's. Take a look at the oil spill...the response is the same one they rolled out in the eighties.

Big business doesnt want anything that will pull down their bottom line, and so they try and use scare tactics to rally support.

Cap and trade works like this:
1) everyone has an equal right to pollute up to a certain emissions cap.
2) dirty companies must clean up and upgrade equip and fixtures sufficient to come in under the cap, or pay the tax.
2.5) the cap slowly gets lowered, prompting companies to improve operations slowly over time
3) companies who have newer facilities have an advantage, because they pollute less, and if they come in under the cap, they have extra credits to sell on the carbon market (many already exist in the US). They can sell extra credits to companies who are over, and companies who are over can relenquish these credits back to the govt for a "pass" on their pollution overages.
4) Thus, as the cap is slowly lowered (by reducing credits distributed), companies using older equip will eventually find it necessary to upgrade operations, because less credits on the market means higher price to buy compliance. When the price of credits is greater than the price to bring your facility into the 21st century, you will upgrade or operate at a loss.
5) All the while, this simultaneously drives the new tech market, because companies will be actively be seeking a good deal on new cleaner tech.

Ask yourself this: who loses here? I'll tell you: big biz who wants to keep the status quo, and they give you all the scary numbers.

Again ask: would the gov tax us under the table at such a vulnerable time?

Or is it more likely that big biz has a huge stake in this battle, multi-million dollar retrofits, and potentially losing some/most/or all of their market share to those who embrace new technologies?

You know the old story...big biz has been buying and burying patents to "100 mpg carbs" for years to cover up the advances so they maintain their share of the market. Well, this shows 1. how wealthy/powerful these interests are, and 2. how resistant they are to change, and 3. how they do not have the interests of the American people in mind.

[DarrinS]

LOL @ not knowing "big biz" will pass costs on to consumers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL @ not knowing "big biz" will pass costs on to consumers.

So let's not do anything! LOL

[DarrinS]

LOL @ starting a new thread on this

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4429321&postcount=70


Attention whore

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL @ starting a new thread on this

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4429321&postcount=70


Attention whore

LOL let's do nothing!

[Phenomanul]

A giant problem I have with the whole cap and trade concept is the fact that CO2 is invariably labeled as a pollutant (even though it's a part of the natural cycle...)

The fact that we live, means that we breathe, which means we pollute... in other words, breathing now needs to be taxed... it's a load of crap for politicians to even venture down this slope...

Did humans melt the Martian ice-caps? Or was it our sun? That's all the anthropomorphic climate change crowd needs to answer...

[Parker2112]

LOL @ not knowing "big biz" will pass costs on to consumers.

When they do, because they will, they leave the market open to those who can produce cheaper (read: cleaner). Thats what makes C&T a winner...it utilizes FREE MARKET THINKING to let big business dictate how it will react. Business will have the option of: 1) staying dirty and buying credits; 2) getting clean and selling their own credits; 3) getting the hell out of the market because they cant operate profitably with 20th century business plans.

[Parker2112]

LOL @ starting a new thread on this

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4429321&postcount=70


Attention whore

This is going to be a huge issue in the coming year...it deserves it own thread. I happen to have a thourough understanding of how this works, and I dont appreciate the mindless re-hash of rhetoric and propoganda from sources that I despise. You seem to be very good at just that.

[EmptyMan]

It's not really about the environment.

[DarrinS]

When they do, because they will, they leave the market open to those who can produce cheaper (read: cleaner). Thats what makes C&T a winner...it utilizes FREE MARKET THINKING to let big business dictate how it will react. Business will have the option of: 1) staying dirty and buying credits; 2) getting clean and selling their own credits; 3) getting the hell out of the market because they cant operate profitably with 20th century business plans.


http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/05/11/myths-of-cap-and-trade-and-clean-energy-policies/

[Parker2112]

A giant problem I have with the whole cap and trade concept is the fact that CO2 is invariably labeled as a pollutant (even though it's a part of the natural cycle...)

The fact that we live, means that we breathe, which means we pollute... in other words, breathing now needs to be taxed... it's a load of crap for politicians to even venture down this slope...

Did humans melt the Martian ice-caps? Or was it our sun? That's all the anthropomorphic climate change crowd needs to answer...

Mars has an entirely different atmosphere...funny enough, it has an atmosphere of over 95% carbon dioxide. Makes sense that Mars will feel an increase in solar activity before we should.

Solar activity has increased, and will increase, but our climate change is increasing at a much faster rate. In other words, the carbon is taking the solar energy and increasing our temp exponentially...take a look at the data.

[DarrinS]

Solar activity has increased, and will increase, but our climate change is increasing at a much faster rate. In other words, the carbon is taking the solar energy and increasing our temp exponentially...take a look at the data.



:lmao


http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/steve_fielding_chart.png

[Parker2112]

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/05/11/myths-of-cap-and-trade-and-clean-energy-policies/

Europe cannot try and create new markets in a vacuum. The new tech would never amount to anything if the market didn't expand globally. Without larger more important markets like the United States coming to the table with a real financial incentive to buy new cleaner technology, Europe alone cant succeed.

Your a fool if you dont understand that the current model is failing...oil based economies are flagging...we need to move on to newer cleaner sources...and you need to quit listening to "Institutes" out of Houston Texas who are paid by the oil industry to promote the status quo, so that their share of the pie keeps rolling in. DONT BE SUCH A SHEEP!

[Parker2112]

:lmao


http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/steve_fielding_chart.png

Dude this is some seriously fucked up information. I didn't even know you could find shit this bad. You have blown my mind here...I realize that I am dealing with someone who would rather confuse the issue with lies than reach any solution which might advance society to more sustainable practices and new sources to bring us out of recession. Are your pockets lined as well? Or are you just a conservative sheep spouting the company line?

[Parker2112]

A note to this cretin and the like: you truly constitute the lowest rung on society's ladder...youre willing to compromise the health and safety of our population for a few measley dollars in your own pocket. You are the very thing that is leading this country into the fucking ground, riding it like a beaten horse long after its given its last good breath, whiping it for every quivering step and shouting at those around you yelling at you to get off..."its fine!" you say, "look at my chart here!" But everyone knows, including you, that this horse will die in a short period of time. You just want to make sure THAT YOU AND YOUR PARTY ARE IN THE RIDER'S CROP WHEN OUR COUNTRY GOES IN THE FUCKING DIRT. You should take a look in the mirror and realize you are a fucking villian.

[DarrinS]

Parker2112,


Your last few posts are comedy gold.


:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Dude this is some seriously fucked up information. I didn't even know you could find shit this bad. You have blown my mind here...I realize that I am dealing with someone who would rather confuse the issue with lies than reach any solution which might advance society to more sustainable practices and new sources to bring us out of recession. Are your pockets lined as well? Or are you just a conservative sheep spouting the company line?

Since you are new here:

DarrinS
and
Wild Cobra

Are two rather ardent climate change "deniers", and have at their disposal a host of data produced by other deniers. Their tactics, data, and method of arugment pretty much take on the charactoristics of conspiracy theorists who try to "prove" that 9-11 "was an inside job".

Invariably when one looks into their data it is rather misleading, and or downright dependent on logical fallacies, usually straight ad hominem and strawman (formal logical fallacies, search either term to see what they are)

The graph posted there is misleading because it shows merely a short term trend. This kind of cherry-picking data is a common theme in the denier movement, just as it is in the truther movement.

It makes me assign their arguments very little weight when it comes to analysing their claims.

[Parker2112]

Parker2112,


Your last few posts are comedy gold.


:lmao

Your cred is shit. And I just met you. It must take effort and tons of arrogance to be that transparent. Either that or your high school education failed you somehow...

[Parker2112]

Since you are new here:

DarrinS
and
Wild Cobra

Are two rather ardent climate change "deniers", and have at their disposal a host of data produced by other deniers. Their tactics, data, and method of arugment pretty much take on the charactoristics of conspiracy theorists who try to "prove" that 9-11 "was an inside job".

Invariably when one looks into their data it is rather misleading, and or downright dependent on logical fallacies, usually straight ad hominem and strawman (formal logical fallacies, search either term to see what they are)

The graph posted there is misleading because it shows merely a short term trend. This kind of cherry-picking data is a common theme in the denier movement, just as it is in the truther movement.

It makes me assign their arguments very little weight when it comes to analysing their claims.

I guess I just dont come across people this hell bent on lies and misinformation often enough to know they still try.

[boutons_deux]

cap'n'trade is in principle a good idea and good motivation, but it's so complex, therefore impossible to regulate in practice, coupled with the bad faith of corporations and finally the casino gamesmen of Wall St, that it will have tons of unintended consequences, and very little of intended consequences.

[Parker2112]

cap'n'trade is in principle a good idea and good motivation, but it's so complex, therefore impossible to regulate in practice, coupled with the bad faith of corporations and finally the casino gamesmen of Wall St, that it will have tons of unintended consequences, and very little of intended consequences.

I admit that this is a real possibility, but otherwise there is no way to push the elephant that is big business to the stream that is up-to-date equip and facilities and make them drink.

It is meant to be a kick in the ass, and while it does that, it also steers consumers away from excessive/expensive consumption. At this point it is a necessary thing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's not really about the environment.

tell us what it's 'really' about...

[RandomGuy]

Europe cannot try and create new markets in a vacuum. The new tech would never amount to anything if the market didn't expand globally. Without larger more important markets like the United States coming to the table with a real financial incentive to buy new cleaner technology, Europe alone cant succeed.

Your a fool if you dont understand that the current model is failing...oil based economies are flagging...we need to move on to newer cleaner sources...and you need to quit listening to "Institutes" out of Houston Texas who are paid by the oil industry to promote the status quo, so that their share of the pie keeps rolling in. DONT BE SUCH A SHEEP!

One can't completely dismiss their criticisms simply because they might have a financial incentive to make them.

Either a claim is valid on its face or it isn't.

Much of what they pointed out is rather valid when it comes to pointing out the drawbacks of such a system.

You can't make anything better, if you don't admit the problems.

Darrin et al, for their part won't admit the problems with their policy solutions such as unrestricted drilling, and failure to invest in renewables.

Such dishonesty might make them feel better, but it leads to bad solutions if you only consider one side of the ledger, and not the other.

[johnsmith]

RG, you lose your job or something? Everytime I log on to spurstak lately, you are killing it.

[RandomGuy]

cap'n'trade is in principle a good idea and good motivation, but it's so complex, therefore impossible to regulate in practice, coupled with the bad faith of corporations and finally the casino gamesmen of Wall St, that it will have tons of unintended consequences, and very little of intended consequences.

I would tend to agree for the most part, and oddly enough the link posted by Darrin pretty much oulined just that. You are in agreement with Darrin. :lol

It is one of those "it sounds good on paper". It may be possible to tweak it a bit, but I have a feeling that oil depletion and economic stress will probably act to reduce CO2 emissions quite well enough, without such systems.

[RandomGuy]

RG, you lose your job or something? Everytime I log on to spurstak lately, you are killing it.

I tend to work more at night and weekends, which is why you don't see me much then. :lol

That and I have had to sit in on mindless conference calls a lot recently. I am listening to someone drone on as I type on mute. :sleep

Hopefully this matter will get cleared up soon, erk.

[RandomGuy]

speaking of which, they are wrapping up now. Joy. laters.

[Parker2112]

Either a claim is valid on its face or it isn't.



If this were true, it would be easy to make policy. Which its not. There is so much to consider when trying to validate a political policy contention. This is why the famed Texas common wisdom fails so often. To judge a statement on its face is to fail to do the homework.

And I am a native Texan.

[Parker2112]

You can't make anything better, if you don't admit the problems.



I couldnt agree more with this.

[DarrinS]

Since you are new here:

DarrinS
and
Wild Cobra

Are two rather ardent climate change "deniers", and have at their disposal a host of data produced by other deniers. Their tactics, data, and method of arugment pretty much take on the charactoristics of conspiracy theorists who try to "prove" that 9-11 "was an inside job".



:rolleyes






Invariably when one looks into their data it is rather misleading, and or downright dependent on logical fallacies, usually straight ad hominem and strawman (formal logical fallacies, search either term to see what they are)

The graph posted there is misleading because it shows merely a short term trend. This kind of cherry-picking data is a common theme in the denier movement, just as it is in the truther movement.



The IPCC likes the debunked "hockey stick" graph. They liked it so much that they used it in 4 or 5 different places in one of their reports. That graph is also misleading. If plotted on a far larger time scale, the so-called unprecedented warming doesn't look very significant.




It makes me assign their arguments very little weight when it comes to analysing their claims.



Hey, it's a free country.

[Parker2112]

:rolleyes





The IPCC likes the debunked "hockey stick" graph. They liked it so much that they used it in 4 or 5 different places in one of their reports. That graph is also misleading. If plotted on a far larger time scale, the so-called unprecedented warming doesn't look very significant.

Dude you were trying to prove no climate change with a graph with a single decade span. Now your talking about long-term data. Your a fucking hypocrite. or a mindless conservative sheep.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dude you were trying to prove no climate change with a graph with a single decade span. Now your talking about long-term data. Your a fucking hypocrite. or a mindless conservative sheep.

He's both!

[boutons_deux]

y'all left out "duped shill for oil/gas/coal corps". see, eg: Koch Industries

[boutons_deux]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/06/17/c_06182010.gif

[DarrinS]

8mxmo9DskYE

[Parker2112]

8mxmo9DskYE

how the fuck can you measure global climate changes by limiting your samples to a single region?

what a disaster.

[DarrinS]

how the fuck can you measure global climate changes by limiting your samples to a single region?

what a disaster.



How can you reconstruct (not measure, dumbass) global TEMPERATURE ANOMALY (not "climate change", dumbass) by using tree proxies from only a select few locations?

[Phenomanul]

Mars has an entirely different atmosphere...funny enough, it has an atmosphere of over 95% carbon dioxide. Makes sense that Mars will feel an increase in solar activity before we should.

Solar activity has increased, and will increase, but our climate change is increasing at a much faster rate. In other words, the carbon is taking the solar energy and increasing our temp exponentially...take a look at the data.

That's all I wanted to hear...

The Sun is the driver... period.

P.S. The Polar ice caps on Mars are CO2... the main factor obviously is solar flux.

[Phenomanul]

and ummmm.... (goes without saying) we can't really control solar flux (nor should we attempt to)...

The fact that our Polar ice caps and Mars' Polar 'dry-ice' caps shrunk in equal proportions over the last 8 years or so should be telling enough...

[Parker2112]

That's all I wanted to hear...

The Sun is the driver... period.

P.S. The Polar ice caps on Mars are CO2... the main factor obviously is solar flux.

So that you might understand:

The sun makes a man without shade sweat.

A man in the shade may not sweat at all.

A man in a greenhouse may get hot enough to die with no water.

Mars has a greenhouse atmosphere. This concentrates the suns affect.

We are moving closer to mar's co2 levels because we are pulling huge amounts of carbon from its storage, storage that occured naturally over millions of years, and disrupting things by spewing it visibly into our atmosphere.

We are building a green house of our own, a greenhouse which will increase the suns affect, and put our way of life at risk.

If we stop, we may not suffer as much, regardless what the sun does.

Whatever the sun throws at us, it could always be worse. And we are doing our best to ensure that happens.

[Parker2112]

and ummmm.... (goes without saying) we can't really control solar flux (nor should we attempt to)...

The fact that our Polar ice caps and Mars' Polar 'dry-ice' caps shrunk in equal proportions over the last 8 years or so should be telling enough...

I dont know that this is true, you dont cite a source, but Mars is farther from the sun, so the fact that it may be warming at a rate equal to the earth shows that the concentrated CO2 effect would have to be magnifying the increased solar activity, since it is not so directly affected... You make my point for me

[TeyshaBlue]

LOL let's do nothing!

Occasionally better than doing the wrong thing.

[DarrinS]

An excellent article on climate models.

Why Climate Modeling Is Not Climate Science

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-climate-modeling-not-climate-science





Most everyone has heard the recent announcement that Global Warming has been put on hold for 20 to 30 years. Earth's variable climate continues to make fools of climate scientists, obstinately refusing to follow the IPCC's climate change script. Why? Because the climate change doomsayers put their faith in computer models, not in hard science.

Following a 30-year warming trend that started in the 1970's, global temperatures have leveled off and even declined since 2001 (see Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End). Despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have caused global temperatures to continue rising, nature has pulled a thermal about face and sent temperatures downwards. Climate scientists are flummoxed.

“It is possible that a fraction of the most recent rapid warming since the 1970's was due to a free variation in climate,” Isaac Held of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wrote in an email to Discovery News. “Suggesting that the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again.”

“This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Niñas. This current cooling doesn't have one.” Why didn't the vast cadre of global warming researchers see this cooling trend coming? After all they have been predicting how Earth's climate will behave 100 years in the future, surely they can predict what will happen over the next decade or two?

The problem here is that all the predictions bandied about by the IPCC and various climate change celebrities are based on General Circulation Models (GCM). These are large, complex computer programs that attempt to model Earth's entire environment. A computer model is a simplified stand-in for some real system; a computer network, a protein molecule, the atmosphere, or Earth's entire climate. A modeler tries to capture the most important aspects of the system being modeled, while leaving off unnecessary detail. Of course, determining what's important and what isn't is the trick.



http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/climate_modeling-ruddman.jpg




This means that a model is always less complicated than the thing being modeled, which in turn means that a model never behaves exactly like the thing being modeled. When you have a large complex system that can react in unexpected ways—called non-linear responses by mathematicians—the accuracy of models becomes even more suspect. In fact, it may be impossible to create an accurate model at all.

Modeling the atmosphere alone is complex, requiring knowledge of incoming solar radiation, the movement of air currents over the land and sea, heat convection, the amount of water vapor, the effects of clouds, and on and on. People have been trying to model Earth's atmosphere for decades, primarily to predict the weather. The weather forecasts you hear on your evening news are all based on computer models. How accurate are these models? In the near term, a few days from today, local weather forecasts are about 60% accurate when predicting high temperatures. For a GCM add in modeling of many more features as well. In fact, GCMs started off very simple and have continued to grow in complexity, if not accuracy, over the years.

Storm track prediction is an example of quantitative modeling, where the expected results of a model are hard numbers. In the case of hurricanes, a storm's track and changes in strength over time are the desired results. But Hurricane trackers get constant feedback from the real storms they track, allowing them to constantly correct their models when they go wrong. We have so little accurate climate data that such corrections are not really possible with GCM. When a GCM prediction diverges from reality is the model wrong, is it missing some critical factor that has been overlooked, or is the baseline data erroneous or non-representative? It is very hard to tell. Ignoring the known inaccuracies of GCM, scientists are still asking models to provide hard answers, something they just cannot do.

Climate change modeling is an example of qualitative modeling. These types of models result in general trends and overall effects of parameter modification. They are used to provide insight into processes where scientists' intuition fails. For example, a qualitative model can tell us that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should cause warming. But qualitative models should not be used to make concrete predictions of future conditions, such as the global average temperature for the next 100 years. As Richard W. Hamming put it, “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.”

That, unfortunately, has not stopped the IPCC and affiliated climate alarmists from trotting out model predictions as science fact. In doing so they are committing the cardinal sin of computer modeling: believing that the model is the thing being modeled. Factually speaking, such numbers are at best a guess and at worst out right lies. So, why is Earth cooling down?

Russian scientists have been saying for years that we’re headed for a cold spell based on known solar cycles. Swanson credits the alignment of a series of climate processes for the cooling climate but what's actually causing the cooling is a mystery. Sinking water currents in the north Atlantic Ocean could be transferring heat into the ocean depths. Extensive low cloud cover in the tropics may be reflecting more of the sun's energy than usual back out into space.

Cloud cover variation would be in line with the historically low solar activity according to the predictions of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. In 1997, Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen popularised a theory that linked galactic cosmic rays and global climate change mediated primarily by variations in the intensity of the solar wind, which they have termed cosmoclimatology. This theory was later expanded on by Shaviv. The influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover has been ignored by the traditional climate science community since it downplays the impact of CO2 on global temperature.

In 2008, a new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggested cooling will counter greenhouse warming for the next decade. However, this model predicts that temperatures will again be rising by 2020. More recently, the study in Geophysical Research Letters predicts global cooling for the next 20 to 30 years. But, that report also predicts that once the hiccup is over, “warming will return and be very aggressive.”

Why do all of the “main stream” climate researchers always add, “global warming will be back”? Because they are still using the outputs of the same models that didn't predict the current cooling trend. The same models that have never correctly predicted Earth's climate. Climate modeling has become a crutch for a previously ignored scientific community that has been thrust into the public light by the global warming scare. They don't have real scientific answers so they use their wonky models, hope for the best and keep asking for more grant money. It is time the public said enough.

[Parker2112]

But qualitative models should not be used to make concrete predictions of future conditions, such as the global average temperature for the next 100 years. As Richard W. Hamming put it, “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.”

And it is excactly insight that we draw from these models. No one knows for shure that we will be underwater in the next 100 years.

But "As Richard W. Hamming put it, 'The purpose of computing is insight,'" and the insight we get is that we could face a major diruption in the planet's economic and ecologic systems if we dont transition while we can still do so comfortably.

[Parker2112]

"Russian scientists have been saying for years that we’re headed for a cold spell based on known solar cycles"

And they are some of the best and brightest?

[Parker2112]

"They don't have real scientific answers so they use their wonky models, hope for the best and keep asking for more grant money."

The grant money would be doled out even if there wasnt a crisis.

But I know, instead of funding research into subjects that might affect the health of our nation and the world, lets continue to wage war with public funds so that War Hawks can see more growth in their portfolio!

[Phenomanul]

So that you might understand:

The sun makes a man without shade sweat.

A man in the shade may not sweat at all.

A man in a greenhouse may get hot enough to die with no water.

Mars has a greenhouse atmosphere. This concentrates the suns affect.


I'm not arguing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas... we all know it is...

Water vapor is 50 times more potent a greenhouse gas... are you going to establish 'cap a trade' policies for H2O as well?

Are humans to blame for the fact that the recent volcanic eruption over iceland pumped as much soot, SO2 and CO2 into the atmosphere in just three short weeks than the combined anthropomorphic output has over the past 25-30 years...???


We are moving closer to mar's co2 levels

Really? 365-385 ppm = 950,000 ppm ??? :wow


because we are pulling huge amounts of carbon from its storage, storage that occured naturally over millions of years, and disrupting things by spewing it visibly into our atmosphere.

The world's oceans store the majority of Earth's CO2 reserves... when solar flux increases, so too does the temperature of the world's oceans... (and again, we can't control the Sun's output...) as oceanic temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere... which partially increases atmopheric temperatures (on account of the greenhouse effect)... needless to say, the amounts of CO2 reabsorbed by the oceans, and by plant-life for that matter, markedly dwarf man's output every day... how can that daily deficit somehow increase CO2 levels to the point where everyone is running around like chicken little...???



We are building a green house of our own, a greenhouse which will increase the suns affect, and put our way of life at risk.

Chicken Little: Exhibit A



If we stop, we may not suffer as much, regardless what the sun does.

So how come we were worried about a global freeze back in the 70's?? Well into the hydrocarbon fuel age no less....

Fact of the matter is that the sun is the dominant factor in this whole issue... phrases like "regardless what the sun does" tell me you've already decided that said factor has less bearing on global climate than your point of emphasis... humans.



Whatever the sun throws at us, it could always be worse. And we are doing our best to ensure that happens.

We should be environmental conservationists in the true sense of the word... intertwining this issue with taxes, however, is a horrible idea... How is the government going to use that tax money to eliminate "anthropomorphic climate change" anyway??? Are they going to plant more corn? Or spend more money on incentives that are actually more wasteful from an energy standpoint?

[DarkReign]

Thats exactly my fucking problem with climate change idiots.

One fucking volcano erupting emits the same amount of greenhouse gas could in 20-30 years time.

God forbid two might go off in the same year. Would fuck their whole model right up.

Should the world find renewable energy sources? Of course. But that comes from incentive to do so. I can see how the government could put in tax-breaks for renewable energy companies, grants for research, etc.

But to create an entire new currency (because thats what cap+trade does, ultimately) is beyond fucking moronic.

[Parker2112]

I'm not arguing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas... we all know it is...

Water vapor is 50 times more potent a greenhouse gas... are you going to establish 'cap a trade' policies for H2O as well?

Are humans to blame for the fact that the recent volcanic eruption over iceland pumped as much soot, SO2 and CO2 into the atmosphere in just three short weeks than the combined anthropomorphic output has over the past 25-30 years...???



Really? 365-385 ppm = 950,000 ppm ??? :wow

Water vapor moves through our atmosphere at a constant, fast pace. Carbon takes decades to sequester in nature. Your point here is a complete fail.

Humans are to blame for alot of pollution, but not volcanoes. What is your point?

And the 385+ppm currently is up from 325ppm in the 50s and 60s, thus we are closer to mars than we were. Really.

[DarkReign]

Youre so going to get raped in this conversation...good luck. Im out.

[Parker2112]

The world's oceans store the majority of Earth's CO2 reserves... when solar flux increases, so too does the temperature of the world's oceans... (and again, we can't control the Sun's output...) as oceanic temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere... which partially increases atmopheric temperatures (on account of the greenhouse effect)... needless to say, the amounts of CO2 reabsorbed by the oceans, and by plant-life for that matter, markedly dwarf man's output every day... how can that daily deficit somehow increase CO2 levels to the point where everyone is running around like chicken little...???





Think about how long, how many millions of years, it took to sequester the carbon stores in the earth. Then think about how fast, we as a civilization can pump it out and burn it, effectively blanketing ourselves in carbon every day. Man is so efficient at this that he has completely overwhelmed these natural systems in every sense of the word. We have counquer the earth and made her our bitch.

Natural systems are like pendulums, and they are things that we dont understand. But you know as well as I that we are now able to overcome these sytems with our consumptive habits. Many many systems are suffering as a result of our consumptive habits. And we discover every day just how short sighted our arrogance is, when it comes back to bite us in the ass after we fail to understand the full effects we have on our environment.

[Parker2112]

Chicken Little: Exhibit A



So how come we were worried about a global freeze back in the 70's?? Well into the hydrocarbon fuel age no less....

Fact of the matter is that the sun is the dominant factor in this whole issue...


I believe that we should act responsibly, and that we never will if profit is the bottome line by which everything will be measured.

And you have already admitted the properties of carbon dioxide, but you repeatedly want to throw it out as a major factor. Makes tons of sense.

[Parker2112]

So how come we were worried about a global freeze back in the 70's?? Well into the hydrocarbon fuel age no less....



We had no computers to model in the seventies. There were still fuckers claiming the world was flat back then. Try again.

[Parker2112]

We should be environmental conservationists in the true sense of the word... intertwining this issue with taxes, however, is a horrible idea... How is the government going to use that tax money to eliminate "anthropomorphic climate change" anyway??? Are they going to plant more corn? Or spend more money on incentives that are actually more wasteful from an energy standpoint?

You evidently dont understand the power of taxation to discourage certain behaviors, like smoking, driving gas-guzzlers, and excessive pollution, while encouraging other more desiarable ones, like fiscal prudence, home buying, and development and implementation of newer cleaner tech

[Parker2112]

Thats exactly my fucking problem with climate change idiots.

One fucking volcano erupting emits the same amount of greenhouse gas could in 20-30 years time.

God forbid two might go off in the same year. Would fuck their whole model right up.

Should the world find renewable energy sources? Of course. But that comes from incentive to do so. I can see how the government could put in tax-breaks for renewable energy companies, grants for research, etc.

But to create an entire new currency (because thats what cap+trade does, ultimately) is beyond fucking moronic.

See the above. Maybe read the OP. It will give you a clue.

[Phenomanul]

I believe that we should act responsibly, and that we never will if profit is the bottome line by which everything will be measured.

And you have already admitted the properties of carbon dioxide, but you repeatedly want to throw it out as a major factor. Makes tons of sense.


I don't have time to address everything else except for this....

Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas... but the crux of the entire argument IS whether or not CO2's concentration is as big of a factor as the AGW crowd makes it out to be... especially when Earth's record shows cyclical fluctuations that render any 50 ppm increase as the smallest of footnotes in a much longer history with higher and lower concentration peaks... in other words, our current concentration would only be abnormal if it fell outside of the bounds of its historical amplitude... unfortunately for those in your camp, it doesn't....

There are even periods where Earth's CO2 concentration was higher, despite the fact that the global temperature was much cooler... that screams volumes about the causal-effect nature of this factor... If it were a dominant factor, temperature and CO2 concentration would always move in relative sync (without exception)... they certainly don't behave this way.

The Sun drives Earth's climate... volcanoes follow suit... way way way down the list is man's measely contribution... yet you all somehow want to turn the list upside down for political reasons moreso than scientific ones.... that's absolutely baffling to me...

The Martian observation of its caps and how they "coincidentally" shrunk at the same time as Earth's by the same proportion is the nail-in-the-coffin argument as far as anthropomorphic climate change is concerned... Mars' distance and CO2 concentration are factors yes (though LOL at your attempt to claim that a three-order magnitude difference in CO2 concentration is even equatable...); nevertheless the outcome was the same... it's ridiculous to try and distort the argument to suggest that the Sun is not the dominant factor it is.

[Parker2112]

I don't have time to address everything else except for this....

Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas... but the crux of the entire argument IS whether or not CO2's concentration is as big of a factor as the AGW crowd makes it out to be... especially when Earth's record shows cyclical fluctuations that render any 50 ppm increase as the smallest of footnotes in a much longer history with higher and lower concentration peaks... in other words, our current concentration would only be abnormal if it fell outside of the bounds of its historical amplitude... unfortunately for those in your camp, it doesn't....

There are even periods where Earth's CO2 concentration was higher, despite the fact that the global temperature was much cooler... that screams volumes about the causal-effect nature of this factor... If it were a dominant factor, temperature and CO2 concentration would always move in relative sync (without exception)... they certainly don't behave this way.

The Sun drives Earth's climate... volcanoes follow suit... way way way down the list is man's measely contribution... yet you all somehow want to turn the list upside down for political reasons moreso than scientific ones.... that's absolutely baffling to me...

The Martian observation of its caps and how they "coincidentally" shrunk at the same time as Earth's by the same proportion is the nail-in-the-coffin argument as far as anthropomorphic climate change is concerned... Mars' distance and CO2 concentration are factors yes (though LOL at your attempt to claim that a three-order magnitude difference in CO2 concentration is even equatable...); nevertheless the outcome was the same... it's ridiculous to try and distort the argument to suggest that the Sun is not the dominant factor it is.

The sun is the dominant factor we cant control. Carbon is the dominant factor that we can.

Just as we have conquered the Earth in every other facet, we can conquer carbon in the atmosphere. That may mean reigning in carbon-based industries profits as well. That might not be a bad thing.

[Phenomanul]

You evidently dont understand the power of taxation to discourage certain behaviors, like smoking, driving gas-guzzlers, and excessive pollution, while encouraging other more desiarable ones, like fiscal prudence, home buying, and development and implementation of newer cleaner tech

I protect over 200 hectares of Amazonian rainforest...
I don't drink bottled water (simply filter tap water)...
I actively participate in cleaning up the beaches...
I grow some of my own produce for personal consumption...
I contribute to a fund that pays for the salaries of game warden that prevent the unmitigated poaching of many of Africa's endangered wildlife...
I helped develop technologies that are installed on the bottom of certain Japanese fishing vessels to drive away all mammalian sea creatures...
I don't use plastic silverware, styrofoam or any other disposable item that isn't biodegradable...
I use rechargeable batteries, and installed solar panel arrays in my home...
My home has at least one sunlight per room...
etc... etc... etc...

I'm more of a conservationist and environmentalist than many of the people in this forum...

And yet... I believe the government has no business taxing my livelyhood anymore than they already do... carbon credits? geez....

[Parker2112]

I don't have time to address everything else except for this....

Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas... but the crux of the entire argument IS whether or not CO2's concentration is as big of a factor as the AGW crowd makes it out to be... especially when Earth's record shows cyclical fluctuations that render any 50 ppm increase as the smallest of footnotes in a much longer history with higher and lower concentration peaks... in other words, our current concentration would only be abnormal if it fell outside of the bounds of its historical amplitude... unfortunately for those in your camp, it doesn't....

There are even periods where Earth's CO2 concentration was higher, despite the fact that the global temperature was much cooler... that screams volumes about the causal-effect nature of this factor... If it were a dominant factor, temperature and CO2 concentration would always move in relative sync (without exception)... they certainly don't behave this way.

The Sun drives Earth's climate... volcanoes follow suit... way way way down the list is man's measely contribution... yet you all somehow want to turn the list upside down for political reasons moreso than scientific ones.... that's absolutely baffling to me...

The Martian observation of its caps and how they "coincidentally" shrunk at the same time as Earth's by the same proportion is the nail-in-the-coffin argument as far as anthropomorphic climate change is concerned... Mars' distance and CO2 concentration are factors yes (though LOL at your attempt to claim that a three-order magnitude difference in CO2 concentration is even equatable...); nevertheless the outcome was the same... it's ridiculous to try and distort the argument to suggest that the Sun is not the dominant factor it is.

Why would we concern ourselves with the sun or volcano eruptions? We cant affect them.

But why would we claim ignorance and continue to plod down a track of irresponsibility? For profit, pure and simple.

That view is so short-sighted and transparent, it is the true "head-in-the-sand" view if there ever was one.

Even if you dont believe in global warming, you have to admit we are trashing our planet simply to line the pockets of the reigning machine. We can do better and we must. Carbon based energy is incredibly dirty, it is running out, and it is making us sick. If not for climate, then for our own sake.

If you cant get behind any of those reasons, then I dont really understand your motives. Or maybe I do.

[Parker2112]

I protect over 200 hectares of Amazonian rainforest...
I don't drink bottled water (simply filter tap water)...
I actively participate in cleaning up the beaches...
I grow some of my own produce for personal consumption...
I contribute to a fund that pays for the salaries of game warden that prevent the unmitigated poaching of many of Africa's endangered wildlife...
I helped develop technologies that are installed on the bottom of certain Japanese fishing vessels to drive away all mammalian sea creatures...
I don't use plastic silverware, styrofoam or any other disposable item that isn't biodegradable...
I use rechargeable batteries, and installed solar panel arrays in my home...
My home has at least one sunlight per room...
etc... etc... etc...

I'm more of a conservationist and environmentalist than many of the people in this forum...

And yet... I believe the government has no business taxing my livelyhood anymore than they already do... carbon credits? geez....

Its not a tax to tax wealth, it is meant to steer industry away from dirty tech. If you are as enlightened as you claim, you have to understand that corporations will not voluntarily undertake anything that costs, if there is a cheaper route that will serve the bottom line just as well.

[Phenomanul]

We had no computers to model in the seventies. There were still fuckers claiming the world was flat back then. Try again.

How'd I miss this little gem...?

The fact that we had less powerful computers available back then (we obviously had some) by no means invalidates the fact that we had decent thermometers...

I hate to break it to you but temperature records predate the 70's...

[Parker2112]

If I have a factory full of antiquated equip, 20 year old equip that will last another 10 years, equip that triples my pollution rate, but my only cost is maintenance, why would I integrate new cleaner technology?

The answer is I wouldnt.

Cap and Trade will make it to costly to NOT transition away from this scenario.

[Phenomanul]

Anyways... I must bid adieu.....

[Parker2112]

How'd I miss this little gem...?

The fact that we had less powerful computers available back then (we obviously had some) by no means invalidates the fact that we had decent thermometers...

I hate to break it to you but temperature records predate the 70's...

climate models were in the dark ages prior to the application of computing power...we are still working on them, and have only had decent ones for the last couple of decades...

[Phenomanul]

If I have a factory full of antiquated equip, 20 year old equip that will last another 10 years, equip that triples my pollution rate, but my only cost is maintenance, why would I integrate new cleaner technology?

The answer is I wouldnt.

Cap and Trade will make it to costly to NOT transition away from this scenario.

The economies of China and other countries who really don't give a crap about the environment would benefit the most by establishing such a crazy government agency... how can you not see that?

[Parker2112]

Anyways... I must bid adieu.....

Try the scenario above on for size. I would like to see your take.

[Phenomanul]

ok really... bye... I'll read the thread later (my internet access at home needs to be serviced...)

Freaking storm toppled the satellite....

[Parker2112]

The economies of China and other countries who really don't give a crap about the environment would benefit the most by establishing such a crazy government agency... how can you not see that?

They are already moving towards clean-coal tech, while the bastards at the helm of our energy industry would keep us in the dark ages because thats where they make the largest profits.

That is because their people cant even walk the streets without fucking masks on, and their hair thins because the pollution eats away at their fucking hair and scalp. They have no chooice. But much like the auto industry, our business leaders will let them beat us to the punch.

And just like with cars, we wont catch up until we fall flat on our face.

But CEOs could give a fuck at that point...the will have a fat estate already banked.

[z0sa]

The government wastes trillions of dollars on bullshit wars... get the fuck outta Iraq and Afghanistan, start a comprehensive non-partisan program limiting all but extremely necessary federal and state spending, establish a bipartisan timeline for eliminating the national debt no matter how long the debate of "how" must rage; you know, address and answer some of the extremely pertinent issues in a comprehensive manner and then, with a plan in place, if raising taxes is part of the answer, so be it.

[RandomGuy]

If this were true, it would be easy to make policy. Which its not. There is so much to consider when trying to validate a political policy contention. This is why the famed Texas common wisdom fails so often. To judge a statement on its face is to fail to do the homework.

And I am a native Texan.

Hmm. Let me be a bit more clear.

What I meant was:

The truth of a claim is independent of who makes it.


If you start dismissing the criticism brought up by Darrins source solely because the people who run the website might have a financial stake in their position that is simply circumstantial ad hominem and a logical fallacy.

If it were raining outside, and I was selling umbrellas, my advice that you should buy an umbrella if you didn't want to get wet would still be true.

What can you say about their criticism that addresses their claims on the merits of their case?

[Wild Cobra]

Dude this is some seriously fucked up information. I didn't even know you could find shit this bad. You have blown my mind here...I realize that I am dealing with someone who would rather confuse the issue with lies than reach any solution which might advance society to more sustainable practices and new sources to bring us out of recession. Are your pockets lined as well? Or are you just a conservative sheep spouting the company line?
then tell us what's wrong with Darrin's graph.

I have been studying Global Warming for years. CO2 is a minor player, and primarily a product of warming. If the ocean has not warmed, the CO2 levels wouldn't have changed much at all with our activity.

[Wild Cobra]

Since you are new here:

DarrinS
and
Wild Cobra

Are two rather ardent climate change "deniers", and have at their disposal a host of data produced by other deniers. Their tactics, data, and method of arugment pretty much take on the charactoristics of conspiracy theorists who try to "prove" that 9-11 "was an inside job".

----


The graph posted there is misleading because it shows merely a short term trend. This kind of cherry-picking data is a common theme in the denier movement, just as it is in the truther movement.

You guys are the ardent deniers of truth. We show long term trends, you ask anout the last couple decades. We show short tem trends, you say we don't show long terms.

You guys are total tools for the left.

This is plotted data from climatological records done by NASA/NOAA:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg

[Parker2112]

You guys are the ardent deniers of truth. We show long term trends, you ask anout the last couple decades. We show short tem trends, you say we don't show long terms.

You guys are total tools for the left.

This is plotted data from climatological records done by NASA/NOAA:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg

Notice again, this data is from a single location. Antarctica. Even the most dense observer knows you cant determine what is going on with global climate from the data gathered in a single place, a single continent.

That is why this problem requires cooperation between scientists on all the various continents. That work has been done by the IPCC.

Or try your govt out:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/CI-greenhouse-gases.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Slide124ofwarmingppt.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/solarradiation823to1961.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Dude you were trying to prove no climate change with a graph with a single decade span. Now your talking about long-term data. Your a fucking hypocrite. or a mindless conservative sheep.
He was not trying to prove no climate change. That one thing wrong with you alarmists. You do not listen to our words.

We believe anthropogenic warming is very minor compared to natural warming. there is no denial of anthropogenic warming, just the extent.

You guys are the deniers. You deny that natural forces change climate. We have over 400,000 years of climate history that you guys deny.

[Wild Cobra]

how the fuck can you measure global climate changes by limiting your samples to a single region?

what a disaster.
There are other paleoclimatology data that backs it all up.

Why do you guys believe Hansen et. al. when they continue to remove the temperature data and stations they don't like?

[Wild Cobra]

We are moving closer to mar's co2 levels because we are pulling huge amounts of carbon from its storage, storage that occured naturally over millions of years, and disrupting things by spewing it visibly into our atmosphere.

You're kidding, right? The atmospheres are so different, how can you credibly compare them?


We are building a green house of our own, a greenhouse which will increase the suns affect, and put our way of life at risk.
Natural greenhouse effects are very strong compared to any added CO2. Do you understand this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SpectralCalcCO2lines10to20micron-1.jpg



If we stop, we may not suffer as much, regardless what the sun does.

Bullshit.

Anthropogenic warming is small compared to natural forces. If you want to contribute CO2, then you should also consider our CO2 output is between 3% to 4% of natural CO2 output.


Whatever the sun throws at us, it could always be worse. And we are doing our best to ensure that happens.

My God man...

Do you understand the nominal variation of the 11 year solar cycle alone?

It is estimated the earth receives 174 peta-watts of solar energy. The 11 year cycle alone varies by about 0.1%. We correctly have about 0.24% more solar energy average per decade than before the industrial revolution.

Can you tell me what 0.24% of 174 peta-watts is? can you compare that to the estimated global warming average over the same period?

[Wild Cobra]

N
Or try your govt out:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/CI-greenhouse-gases.pdf
Your point? can you show me something that definitively links the change in CO2 to the amount of warming we see? No. you cannot. I can however show you known scientific facts that link sea water temperature to partial gass pressure equilibrium.

I'll bet you think methane and N2O are stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2. they make that information to trick people into believing lies. Don't let the term GWP fool you.

[Wild Cobra]

Please take some time and at least skim these works of Dr. Glassman's. I hope you are open to both sides:

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html#more)

CO2: "WHY ME?" (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more)

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html)

Here is something from New Zealand:

Crisis in New Zealand climatology (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology) first few paragraphs:


May 15, 2010

The warming that wasn't

The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

This is of interest too:

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)

[Wild Cobra]

The Cause of the Earth's Climate Change Is the Sun (http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl):


The CrossFit Journal is proud to present this extraordinary article by Dr. Jeff Glassman (http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf). Formerly the Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions for Hughes Aircraft, Dr. Glassman has dedicated his career to improving the quality of science methodology among his peers and the community at large.

For years he has been disturbed by the lack of credible science identifying human activity as a cause of global warming. This paper is the latest of six papers published on his blog, Rocket Scientist’s Journal, and the first to advance the Sun as the cause of global climate change in the fine detail of the temperature record since the invention of the thermometer.

Dr. Glassman is the first scientist to show that the modern temperature record is contained in the reconstructed history of solar activity, and to advance a model for how that occurs. In his model, the ocean acts to absorb solar energy and return it to the atmosphere decades to centuries later, causing certain patterns in the Sun’s activity to be suppressed and other patterns to be reinforced as they affect Earth’s climate. The variations in the Sun’s activity are small, but are quickly amplified by clouds. This is a novel model for cloud reflectivity, called cloud albedo, in which increases in solar activity cause decreases in cloud cover by direct atmospheric warming, allowing more sunlight to reach Earth’s surface.

This rapid decrease in cloud cover to solar activity runs opposite to the slow increase in cloud cover caused by global warming, which adds humidity to the atmosphere to increase cloudiness. In this way, he says cloud albedo regulates Earth’s surface temperature in warm interglacial periods, capping Earth’s temperature within a few degrees of the present temperature. This, he says, doesn’t stop the greenhouse effect, but reduces its effect by at least one fourth. In the deep cold of the glacial minima known as ice ages, he notes that the atmosphere will be extremely dry and cloudless, turning off any greenhouse effect. In this condition, Earth’s temperature is controlled by the albedo effect of the surface because it is then covered by ice and snow, turning off the Sun and leaving Earth’s temperature to be the result of its internal heat.

Because the Sun variations match Earth’s temperature extremely well, human activities can be ruled out as a cause of observed global warming. However, the global warming movement, since 1988 headed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claims that the “fingerprint” of human activities are found in climate related measurements. Dr. Glassman investigates each of these claims and shows how they are false and scientific error.

In his first paper on climate, Jeff showed that the pattern of the solubility of CO2 in water as it varies with temperature is found in the ice core record. From this result, he concluded that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of global warming, and not the reverse. This, he noted, is confirmed by the fact that the CO2 concentration lags temperature at various rates, with a dominant component at about one millennium, the cycle time of the ocean conveyor belt. He also noted that this natural source of CO2 into the atmosphere is missing from IPCC’s climate models.

In his second paper, Jeff responded to criticisms from a noted federal government champion of human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming, known as AGW. In this third paper, he showed the evidence for concluding that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, an assumption essential to the human-caused global warming notion. In his fourth paper, he showed how Earth’s climate is strongly correlated with one measurement of solar activity, the solar wind, a phenomenon missing from IPCC’s models. He shows that connection is approximately twice as strong as the connection between climate and the El Niño/La Niña effect, which IPCC claims exacts a terrible toll on humanity.

In his fifth paper, Jeff documents eight flaws in IPCC’s climate modeling, each of which is sufficient to invalidate AGW and IPCC’s work.

His sixth paper, reproduced here in the CrossFit Journal, draws from his earlier papers, which are critical of IPCC’s modeling efforts. It critiques IPCC’s fingerprint claims, but states a novel, positive model for Earth’s climate, one that stems from discovery of Earth’s entire record of temperature measurements in the radiation from the Sun.

About the Author: In addition to climate and economic research, Dr. Glassman is Chief Scientist for CrossFit, and is the author Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, 1992, currently being prepared as a series for the CrossFit Journal. Additional biographical information is on the last page of the Solar Global Warming file. His blog is the Rocket Scientist’s Journal (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/).

[Parker2112]

The Cause of the Earth's Climate Change Is the Sun (http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl):

I will read through all of these materials when I can.