Disagree about Global Climate Change? You're not just wrong -- you should be killed!

[Sec24Row7]

www.cei.org


Very interesting..

This guy was on CSPAN today

[Nbadan]

As for the 2005 hurricane season, it was pretty active. After I evacuated New Orleans before Katrina, I ran into Wilma and then Rita. I know there were some folks out there chalking it up to global warming, but it's not like the data is anywhere near conclusive that there have been more hurricanes today than there were before the Industrial Revolution. Shoot, Galveston was destroyed by more than one hurricane -- 1900 and ... 1912? The 1930s were very active. And we don't even have good records before about 1880.

Global climate change isn't going to produce more hurricanes, however it is gonna produce the necessary ingredients for more extreme hurricanes when they do develop. Also, the reason the 06 season was so inactive was because of El Nino.

[Ya Vez]

Also, the reason the 06 season was so inactive was because of El Nino.

go ahead dan blame it on us hispanics...

[Extra Stout]

www.cei.org


Very interesting..

This guy was on CSPAN today

You mean... a big-business think tank is a global warming skeptic??!!

That's never happened before!!!!

[TDMVPDPOY]

go ahead dan blame it on us hispanics...

must be the burnin of tacos comin out of ur asses released into the atmosphere, same with teh curry powder......

[Sec24Row7]

I find it so amusing that every time anyone doubts man made global warming they have to be a big bussiness stooge...

You're a joke.

Human caused global warming is a joke.

It's so freaking REDICULOUSLY easy to see, and yet here we go again with the same arguments...

[Don Quixote]

Global climate change isn't going to produce more hurricanes, however it is gonna produce the necessary ingredients for more extreme hurricanes when they do develop. Also, the reason the 06 season was so inactive was because of El Nino.

Theoretically, true. Again, even the skeptics of the global-warming religion, such as myself, are not really contesting the fact the the earth is getting warmer. It's the other 4 premises (above) that are being disputed. Futhermore, the science suggesting a human cause, etc., is far from solidly established, and if I were to venture a guess, I would say that the real motivation behind the hand-wringing and anxiety over global-warming might from a combination of:
(1) the need for something with which to indentify. Having discarded God and religion, other worldviews, or all-encompassing theories of Everything, are needed.
(2) anti-Americanism, fueled in part by radical professors and the media.
(3) white guilt?

and not so much any science.

[Don Quixote]

I think I contributed to gloabl warming last night. I had some great red beans & rice down on Poydras Street, about 2 blocks from the French Quarter, and (I measured this) I released 3 cc methane and about 5 cc of CO2 into the atmosphere. My poor wife thought about turning me in to the EPA.

[xrayzebra]

^^I am surprised she didn't slap you up side the head, especially
if you did it under the covers...... .

But may I say I wished I had been there with you while
you had the ingredients to produce such pollution.
and shared those ingredients with you.

[xrayzebra]

And then you have this expert who wants special treatment for
his "expert" testimony.

Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment
March 20, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:08 PM ET – [email protected]

From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.

Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
(See "FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming" )

The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.

But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.

But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.

As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.

The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing.

It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?

===================================

Of course I'm sure he wants no questions to be ask about his
"expert" testimony.

[boutons_]

Here's a well-known and respected conservative at Washington Post (how many well-known and respected liberal/progressives work for Faux News) on the futility of humans doing anything now to undo their post-1800 up of CO2 levels.

=========

Hollywood's Climate Follies

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, March 21, 2007; A15

"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue. It's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

-- Al Gore, accepting an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth"

Global warming has gone Hollywood, literally and figuratively. The script is plain. As Gore says, solutions are at hand. We can switch to renewable fuels and embrace energy-saving technologies, once the dark forces of doubt are defeated. It's smart and caring people against the stupid and selfish. Sooner or later, Americans will discover that this Hollywood version of global warming (largely mirrored in the media) is mostly make-believe.

Most of the many reports on global warming have a different plot. Despite variations, these studies reach similar conclusions. Regardless of how serious the threat, the available technologies promise at best a holding action against greenhouse gas emissions. Even massive gains in renewables (solar, wind, biomass) and more efficient vehicles and appliances would merely stabilize annual emissions near present levels by 2050. The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions.

The latest report came last week from 12 scientists, engineers and social scientists at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology. The report, "The Future of Coal," was mostly ignored by the media. It makes some admittedly optimistic assumptions: "carbon capture and storage" technologies prove commercially feasible; governments around the world adopt a sizable charge (a.k.a. tax) on carbon fuel emissions. Still, annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 are roughly at today's levels. Without action, they'd be more than twice as high.

Coal, as the report notes, is essential. It provides about 40 percent of global electricity. It's cheap (about a third of the cost of oil) and abundant. It poses no security threats. Especially in poor countries, coal use is expanding dramatically. The United States has the equivalent of more than 500 coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 500 megawatts each. China is building two such plants a week. Coal use in poor countries is projected to double by 2030 and would be about twice that of rich countries (mainly the United States, Europe and Japan). Unfortunately, coal also generates almost 40 percent of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), a prime greenhouse gas.

Unless we can replace coal or neutralize its CO2emissions, curbing greenhouse gases is probably impossible. Subs ution seems unlikely, simply because coal use is so massive. Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a bright spot: Catch the CO2and put it underground. On this, the MIT study is mildly optimistic. The technologies exist, it says. Similarly, geologic formations -- depleted oil fields, unusable coal seams -- provide adequate storage space, at least in the United States. But two problems loom: First, capture and storage adds to power costs; and second, its practicality remains suspect until it's demonstrated on a large scale.

No amount of political will can erase these problems. If we want poorer countries to adopt CCS, then the economics will have to be attractive. Right now, they're not. Capturing CO2and transporting it to storage spaces uses energy and requires costlier plants. On the basis of present studies, the MIT report says that the most attractive plants with CCS would produce almost 20 percent less electricity than conventional plants and could cost almost 40 percent more. Pay more, get less -- that's not a compelling argument. Moreover, older plants can't easily be retrofitted. Some lack space for additions; for others costs would be prohibitive.

To find cheaper technologies, the MIT study proposes more government research and development. The study's proposal of a stiff charge on carbon fuel -- to be increased 4 percent annually -- is intended to promote energy efficiency and create a price umbrella to make CCS more economically viable. But there are no instant solutions, and a political dilemma dogs most possibilities. What's most popular and acceptable (say, more solar) may be the least consequential in its effects; and what's most consequential in its effects (a hefty energy tax) may be the least popular and acceptable.

The actual politics of global warming defies Hollywood's stereotypes. It's not saints vs. sinners. The lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies. Without major changes in technology, the consequences may be unalterable. Those who believe that addressing global warming is a moral imperative face an equivalent moral imperative to be candid about the costs, difficulties and uncertainties.

[Sec24Row7]

People that disagree with it and make concessions are even worse than the idiots who promote this false idea that we are causing the planet to heat up.

[xrayzebra]

^^Humans give themselves too much credit. If we can cause
something, how come we cant prevent something, you know like
hail storms, tornado's and hurricanes. We cant and we cant affect
the physics of earth.

[Ozzman]

I find it so amusing that every time anyone doubts man made global warming they have to be a big bussiness stooge...

You're a joke.

Human caused global warming is a joke.

It's so freaking REDICULOUSLY easy to see, and yet here we go again with the same arguments...

[Ozzman]

yes, and this is the same Al Gore who has a 1200 dollar electricity bill?
And furthermore, if he was so concerned about global warming, why doesn't he quit farting as well? or how about he not live? but even then he'd decompose and cause greenhouse gas emissions. HMM. What a conundrum, huh? and why doesn't he have a hybrid limo? or for that matter, why would he support a movie? people who live in the countryside who want to see it are just going to drive there anyway, right?