I still haven’t seen that piece of evidence that convinces me of the magnitude and importance of climate change. I’m open to it, but still have not seen the smoking gun.

In any case, we are not anywhere close to true international cooperation. Developing nations aren’t willing to restrict their growth. America, the world’s top polluter, is unlikely to expend any treasure to combat a problem that isn’t right in our face. Lets just say it. Individuals are going to ask “whats in it for me? why should I bother”

Cory,

at least most people can agree to is that alot of pollution in a city, town can cause heat waves, be bad for the people’s health, bad health conditions, possiably sink into the soil and pollute our drinking water.

So on a much more massive scale logically would become much more dangerous.Logically areas with high volumes of pollutants is not good for the people living there.

I would prefer to tackle this while there is less of a threat to my health and safety and well being than wait and wait till finally there very little to do and it’s is a direct threat to me.

Yeah, let’s all please listen to science and agree to a serious threat. Unless you’re a climatologist keep your opinions to yourself. If you wait until the climate is a serious threat, you’ve waited too long.

Further, if they are wrong and we become much more efficient, that’s still a net gain for the economy and living standards. There is absolutely no reason not to improve our energy system, other than for political grandstanding, which is our leaders always seem to be after, power, rather than public service…

Keep stalling Senate.

America is falling farther and farther behind China and Germany and Spain and Brazil. Of all the major wind turbine manufactures only one is in America. China is way ahead of us in the manufactor of solar panels.

Just look to the Senate America to thank them for your slip into 3rd world status.

Tom:

I work in renewable energy and want climate change action as bad as anyone, but the inflection point is just not there yet from a technology/policy perspective. Instead of sinking more money into subsidies for technologies that are not yet cost competituve or reliable enough to use for peak loading, we should be pumping money into R&D and leaning heavily on mature renewables like hydro and nuclear while regulating in a way that incents people to use energy efficiently.

Why can’t President Obama make a bilateral deal with China (and then India) to cross-license intellectual property related to CCS and alternative fuels? I think Americans are wrong if they think they can artificially boost the US economy by restricting imports from China (to try to preserve US jobs) and at the same time make money from exporting environmental and energy products and technology to a developing and poorer China. China and US have to agree to work together and that would soon collapse if there are trade disputes and protectionism, and also patent lawsuits and government interference in who can get contracts. Such a bilateral deal could replace the multilateral Kyoto framework, which was held back by refusal of US and China to agree.

stop making excuses Senator Brown.

The world is leaving us behind.

We are no longer leaders of anything in the world but spending money on Defense.

I think there is enough “disbelief” in global warming and/or the human influence on global warming to make political agreements about it very difficult.

I believe that it is time to take a conservation point of view for the world. The Earth has a finite supply of natural resources. To the extent that governments set policy for energy and any commercial endeavor, laws should support the efficient use of energies and alternative energies, the recycling of product made of natural resources and the “clean” production and recycling so many future generations will have resources.

I think more politicians can agree on the exhaustion of resources than global warming and its causes.

Expanding the market into the efficient use of existing energies and the development of alternative sources of energies and conserving the production and recycling of products will keep people employed and investors making money. Eventually, all current industries will “run out of gas” and alternatives will be required. Why not start now instead of waiting until we are all standing around with no air conditioners or furnaces and no energy to run them?

Tom (above, not Tom on the radio)

Lean on nuclear? There is no capitol to build new nuclear plants.

Come to terms with that. The banks managed to evaporate trillions in capitol and the US government tried to fill the gap with promises from treasury. We can’t even promise any more since the Chinese no longer are taking our IOUs seriously.

You sound a bit hysterical, Tom. Take a pill.

If you want to fully understand why the global science community and most governments are convinced of climate change, please read through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings. This is the main body of knowledge regarding this critical issue.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#1

GM had electric cars since the 1970’s and at that time Bureaucracy and profit over road the environment. We see this with our current guest speaker and nearly all Politicians, bucking their responsibilities toward their people for profit.

There are several brilliant scientific minds out there whom have told numerous administrations what must be done and like spoiled petulant children not wanting to go to school, they all sit about whining about why it CANT be done.

What I want to ask is whats more important, your comfort ability and doing less work or your people and the world?

The question to be asked is: why are we considering participation in this Copenhagen int’l climate conference when the premise of said conference is based upon pseudo-science? This conference is NOT about science, it’s about politics and exerting control over the masses. The Earth has experienced warming/cooling cycles countless times over the eons. It’s the Sun stupid!

C’mon Tom, let’s mention of the hundreds of international scientists that have rejected this man-made global warming myth (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3).

Attributing climate change to man-made carbon emissions is merely a ploy to institute another tax—an international tax, no less! Do we really want to agree to a treaty that gives a U.N. governing body the carte blanche power to tax countries? This is taxation w/o representation on an int’l scale, and it will erase what little sovereignty we have left as a country. It’s just another way for the elites to push their one world gov’t agenda on the rest of us.

Bill Luzader:

Great point!

The WH and Congress knew that climate uncertainty would be a hurdle all along (http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/07/28/three-strikes-why-cap-and-trade-is-dead-for-2009/)

They have been trying to use other levers, but after floating a few balloons (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/08/11/the-pentagons-war-against-carbon/), they really have not pushed other reasons for energy reform hard enough.

We have been eating our seed corn for the past 100 years. We can’t look at the environment from an isolated point of view. Economics and social justice are essential to solving environmental problems.

Environmentalism by definition has to be the big picture. There is no reason to think we will succeed. That is not a reason to give up.

Once we view the earth as a single organism, we will quit cutting off our nose to spite our face. Jobs will change, industries will come and go, we have to solve these issues as a world, our values around our standard of living must change. We should value time, it may be the most precious resource.

Todd

I bet you listen to ALexJones. Or Rush Limbaugh or GLenn Beck or Sean Hannity.

All of them are intellectual giants so I can see why you would.

David:

I disagree on capital for nuclear. We just pumped out $11 billion for other technologies. And, big utilities around the country are willing to pony up if they can be allowed to have some stake in the generation side of the business.

VC investment was also up almost 50% over 2Q, some of that might go to microreactors with the right regulatory change.

Maggie is making sense. What she is saying is that Congress is bought and paid for by big business. And money talks. And money buys the winners in cap and trade.

How much of the climate change inaction in the US is business, science and the issue not covered in any way yet – fundamentalist christians?

Tom

11 billion? That’s one nuclear plant. The capitol isn’t there to build new nuclear plants.

Tom:

We have to be VERY careful about looking to European models on cap-and-trade, feed-in tariffs and other approaches that are being hailed for their success across the pond.

Our energy regulatory system is entirely different and if we tried to go plug-and-play using those models, the burden of dramatically increased costs could expose ratepayers to huge potential risks.

There could be models to adapt there, but we have to do it carefully and with a cautious eye to how a suite of changes would balance and impact each other.

“Todd

I bet you listen to ALexJones. Or Rush Limbaugh or GLenn Beck or Sean Hannity.

All of them are intellectual giants so I can see why you would.”
Posted by David

No sir, you’re 0 for 4. So, is Al Gore the intellectual giant that you sit at the feet of David? Didn’t he tell you that he invented man-made global warming myth…it was right after he invented the internet. It doesn’t take an “intellectual giant” to apply a little common sense. Show me your science (or lack of it) and I’ll show you mine.

according to the UN report on climant change, section 5.2 “‘Key Vulnerabilities, Impacts and Risks – long-term perspectives’: The five ‘reasons for concern’ identified in the TAR are now assessed to be stronger with many risks identified with higher confidence.”

The IPCC did not state the risks as emphatically as Gordon Brown did, and Tom continues to overlook that fact. The panel states that we have “reason for concer”. It does NOT state we are heading for a world that resembles a frying pan, to paraphrase Tom. With the potential cost, it is worth taking a measured approach.

David:

Not that it really matters, but I am Joe. Either way, I agree you are looking at $10 Bn+ for a plant, but we have $18 bn in loan guarantees sitting there since 2006 and if you factor in externality costs, nukes are cheaper than coal.

We can go with other renewables, but then we just spread the cost to ratepayers through green power premiums, subsidies, etc.

Hi Tom,
Could you have your guests comment on the parallels between the cap and trade system that was put in place for Sulfur Dioxide to reduce acid rain around a decade ago.

I recall that power companies complained and spooked customers with the threat of higher costs being handed down to them, but I am unsure of those threats were ever acted upon.
Thanks.

Todd

I don’t waste time anymore trying to convince people who don’t believe in science that global warming is real.

What I will do is debate whether the US is falling behind the rest of the world in moving to clean energy and we are, big time.

Sorry Joe for getting your name wrong.

The Boston Globe recently discussed the delays in getting clean energy in Ma. They pointed to the “Cape Wind” project as to a good idea, that the left keeps blocking. I wish the left would quit blocking clean energy and get onboard.

David:

no problem…at least you know my face so if you see me in the street we can resume the debate!

glad to have exchanged thoughts with you.

I’ve heard the cost per family of implementing this bill is about $100-$200 per family.

Buy the time I pay home owner’s insurance and car insurance, etc, I’m up to $1500 a year, just for one person. And that’s for accidents that are unlikely to happen.

It seems to me like $100- $200 a year for “climate change insurance” is a tiny price to pay for something that is exceedingly likely to happen.

Cory, good point.

Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said “When all else fails, men turn to reason.” Alas, he was wrong. The profit motive always trumps reason – e.g.; the Obama Administration bail outs, the refusal to acknowledge that we are destroying our home planet. With few exceptions, our elected officials are ignorant: they don’t understand the challenges facing our country and the world, and strangly refuse to educate themselves… Why? Because they don’t see that the costs of solutions, which would benefit everyone in the long-term, are less expensive than doing nothing. As a former tropical rain forest consultant, global warming was a component of the our warnings. Taking part in three congressional hearings in 1980, I witnessed the disinterest among most of the representatives on the subcommittee (then-congressman Dan Quayle actually slept through the hearings). Nonetheless, “Save the Rain Forests” became the boutique environmental concern for almost a decade before fading away. Tragically, we humans have a greater capacity for denial than for confronting and dealing with crises. We talk the talk, but fail to either demand meaningful action from our representatives or run for office ourselves. I care for our small farm in Vermont and grieve for Earth…

Todd: I could think of a great number of things that could give a political party or financial interest “power over the masses” that would sell better than climate warming. It is the people who are opposing the efforts to avoid the worst effects of climate warming that are the real “power grab” attempters. But if they (and, I guess you) win, it will be a Potemkin win; civilization as we know it will no longer exist and the world will belong to groups that live like the Afghans or the Mongols, who still live as small tribes capable of living directly off the land. Maybe you personally will not have to face that but your children most probably and your grandchildren most certainly WILL.

“Todd

I don’t waste time anymore trying to convince people who don’t believe in science that global warming is real.

What I will do is debate whether the US is falling behind the rest of the world in moving to clean energy and we are, big time.”
Posted by David

In other words, you have no convincing science to offer. However, you’ll get no argument from me on moving to clean energy—I agree with you 100%. But, I’d rather make that move based upon reason & fact, not a political myth.

Janet:

The “Left” is NOT against Cape Wind! There have been various environmental groups that INITIALLY raised objections, but these have largely been dealt with and those who continue to object are those funded by fossil fuel interests (Koch Industries being the major one) and coal in particular.

Todd:

No, there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence that Global Warming is real; but there are still a number of people who are like thirsty horses which you can lead to water but won’t drink. From your comments here, you appear to be one of them. I hope that you eventually go to sites like Real Climate and actually read what they have to say with an open mind; however, like David, I do not enjoy the role of Sisyphus.

To get anywhere in this debate we need to speak to fact in the best way we can by uncovering the truth and presenting it in as orderly a fashion as possible. This is not happening. Why? Because it turns out that our evolving intelligence is not keeping up with our technology. So the question becomes, “Can we begin evolving smart enough and quickly enough to avoid self annihilation after only a few thousand years of existence?” We need to understand that the question is not purely rhetorical, either, because Mother Earth has a virus. And that virus, unfortunately, is us.

Todd:

Al Gore NEVER claimed to have “invented” the Internet; what he DID DO was to push through Congress the funding for its development. Likewise he has never claimed to have invented Global Warming; you can follow the history of the discovery (and denial) of human caused Global Warming at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

What Al Gore has done is to try to convey the importance to every human being of making the changes in the way we live to avoid what most people will consider a catastrophe.

“Todd: I could think of a great number of things that could give a political party or financial interest “power over the masses” that would sell better than climate warming.”
Posted by DonaldB

It seems to be “selling” well enough. You’ve bought it, haven’t you? Again, the science to support man-made global warming is simply not there.

It isn’t the marketability of global warming that’s the most important factor. Rather, it’s the ability to use it as a political/financial ploy to siphon off wealth (via int’l cap & trade tax) from developed nations.

Maybe you could tell me what you would need to be convinced?

“…because Mother Earth has a virus. And that virus, unfortunately, is us.”
Posted by F. William Bracy

All hail Gaia, huh? No thanks.

“Maybe you could tell me what you would need to be convinced?”
Posted by DonaldB

I don’t think you and I are all that different. Just show me what it was that convinced you.

Todd:

Again, you (maybe intentionally) misunderstand Lovelock’s Gaia Theory (really an hypothesis); that hypothesis proposed that the Earth’s complex systems were self-regulating (much like the fresh-water economic school proposed for markets) but what Global Warming indicates is that the Earth is NOT self-regulating to the extent of keeping itself in a climate condition like the last 10,000 years when our civilization developed. It is beginning to take off in a direction toward a climate that could easily duplicate, either partially or completely, the mass extinctions of the past.

@DonaldB

In the interim, I refer again to the link that I posted above: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3)

I’m NOT claiming that the Earth hasn’t experienced a recent warming trend. All I’m saying is that there is a mass of scientific evidence that indicates the cause is not man-made; rather, it’s related to the solar cycle. And there is also a mass of prominent scientists that specialize in climatology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. who refute the claim that global warming is an anthropogenic effect.

Doug in Vermont:

“Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said “When all else fails, men turn to reason.” Alas, he was wrong. The profit motive always trumps reason – e.g.; the Obama Administration bail outs, the refusal to acknowledge that we are destroying our home planet.”

While I am disappointed in the Obama administration’s “bail outs,” I acknowledge it was a really difficult call. But Obama IS tackling the climate and energy crisis in a courageous way. But everyone must not expect him to be able to do it alone. As FDR said to his supporters, (paraphrase) “I want to do it, now MAKE me do it.”

As for the Abba Eban quote, the demagogues never turn to reason, they turn to scare tactics and policies that benefit themselves to the detriment of the whole. Right now the fossil fuel interests and their (out of power) allies in the Republican Party are doing both at full press.

Obama has not developed a good enough narrative to convince enough of the American people and his lack of strong action against Wall Street (which, ironically, would be opposed by the Republicans) has sown doubt on his leadership. And that strong action could well have slowed what financial recovery we have had.

The economically illiterate among us are easily persuaded that the stimulus is wrong, but it was really too little; look at how China is recovering because it implemented a proportionately (to its economic size) much larger stimulus.

Todd:

Tell me why you DO NOT believe AGW based on facts that show it is NOT happening, not just that you don’t believe it.

Todd:

Your reference to the Senate minority blogs is worthless; EVERY ONE of the points made have been refuted at sites such as::

A Few Things Ill Considered
Climate Science Watch
Climate.org
ClimateWire
DeSmogBlog
Eco-Compass
Greenfyre’s
Gristmill
It’s Getting Hot In Here
RealClimate
Solve Climate
Think Progress
TreeHugger

Most of the 700 “scientists” are NOT climate scientists and work in the fossil fuel or related areas. They do NOT begin to compare in credibility with well over 2000 CLIMATE scientists, who have EVERY incentive to debunk AGW if it could be.

I hope that you will take the time to read some of the REAL science rather than the made up stuff.

“While I am disappointed in the Obama administration’s “bail outs,” I acknowledge it was a really difficult call. But Obama IS tackling the climate and energy crisis in a courageous way. But everyone must not expect him to be able to do it alone. As FDR said to his supporters, (paraphrase) “I want to do it, now MAKE me do it.””

==

Hmmm….what else do we need to do? We sent him to the White House for 4 years based on his message of Hope and Change, gave his party overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate – even to the extent of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I can bet that the members of the Congress have also continued to give themselves pay raises even in tough economic times, so they are getting paid – very well – to do their job.

If the Democrats and Obama need any more pressure in spite of overwhelming and roadblock-free majorities and controlling the Congress and the White House, well, I don’t want to re-post Jon Stewart’s words regarding the Democrats again. If the Democrats still can’t implement their agenda, maybe they should retire and make way for someone who can and is willing to do the job – instead of having someone else make him do it.

BTW, what’s the context of FDR’s statement? What was the situation in the WH and the Congress, and how is it analogous to today?

I am very suspicious of such statements that are plucked and removed from their context and applied thoughtlessly to another situation which may or may not be the same, as way of an apology for someone’s non-performance, or to obfuscate the fact that he is compromising on what he promised because of “campaign contributions” (bribe) from fat cats.

From Wikipedia:

“Lovelock expects human civilization will be hard pressed to survive. He expects the change to be similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 450 ppm. At that point the Arctic Ocean was 23 °C and had crocodiles in it, with the rest of the world mostly scrub and desert. He says of sustainable development and renewable energy that it came “200 years too late” and that more effort should go into adaptation, including more use of fission. He likens the Kyoto Protocol to the Munich conferences that failed to prevent World War II, including the likelihood that the disaster will cause people to come together in common cause. “We have been through no less than seven of these events as humans…comparable in extent to the change” likely to be wrought by global warming.

He claims that Gaia’s self-regulation will likely prevent any extraordinary runaway effects that wipe out life itself, but that humans will survive and be “culled and, I hope, refined.”

According to James Lovelock, by 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. The people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain:[27]

By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin. In Britain we will escape because of our oceanic position.” Lovelock believes it is too late to repair the damage. “If you take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions, then by 2040 every summer in Europe will be as hot as it was in 2003 – between 110F and 120F. It is not the death of people that is the main problem, it is the fact that the plants can’t grow — there will be almost no food grown in Europe. We are about to take an evolutionary step and my hope is that the species will emerge stronger. It would be hubris to think humans as they now are God’s chosen race.”
—-
Ignore at your peril.

From what I’ve read over the years on climate change throughout the history of the earth, within those points in time when there were extreme climatic disturbances that caused great catastrophe, e.g., abrupt extinction of very large mammals, the ice age, etc., there is quite a lot of scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that these changes occurred by a sudden release of co2 into the atmosphere. These data are gathered from core samples taken from deep, deep into the earth in the Arctic and Antarctic, among many other data taken in various points around the earth, in fossils, other geologic studies, and so on. There is pretty much complete agreement in the scientific community over this, and all scientists also agree that those aforementioned periods of abrupt and extreme climate change were not the result of human impact. There is also agreement that something, some abrupt shift outside of the normal continuum of climatic cycles, upset the balance of climate causing an enormous increase in co2 released into the atmosphere. Scientists don’t always agree on what that “something” was; however, pretty much all scientists do agree that it was either a large meteor hitting the earth, the earth shifting abruptly on its axis, a seismic increase in certain kinds of activity from the sun (distinctly outside normal cycles), disturbances in the earth’s core that set off a series of chain reactions causing most volcanoes to simultaneously erupt, etc., or something of that nature of “disturbance.”

There is reasonable agreement now from the scientific community of a current increase in the amount of co2 activity released around the earth. It is not of the abrupt and extreme intensity mentioned in the previous examples, but it is also of such a frequency, intensity and duration, causing concern and prompting close study. If one factors out the human equation from what is happening with current levels of increases in co2 emissions, scientists can not at all explain what is causing the emissions. There are no cataclysmic events currently happening to explain such emissions. So, in terms of common sense, the only plausible explanation is that human activity is the culprit. The frequency, intensity and duration of the activity strongly supports the human factor hypothesis. The lack of evidence that would support other reasons also reinforces the human factor hypothesis. Most scientists not supported by big business or political organizations…well…ALL scientists not supported by such businesses/political organizations, agree that destructive climatic changes are occurring outside of natural, normal cycles of climatic shifts. So, the question became a long time ago: what is happening? And, though that question still has some of its flags up, more and more of them have been put down to point toward human activity, purely.

Although, consideration of business and the body politic will always be a factor in making decisions/ creating choices, we can not chalk this problem up to natural cycles that will correct themselves if there are no or little behavioral changes coming from humans. It therefore would behoove human kind to act responsibly, creatively, and soon! And, in such a manner that makes action appropriate to the problem, and scale of the problem, the top priority; that is if we want to change the future path of generations to come toward a better prognosis. As always, the devil is in the details. And, if we are being alarmist by having those beliefs that we need to change, the question becomes: so, then what will be the most probable outcome of our changes? Better air quality? More balanced ecosystems? Less erosion? Etcetera. Or, for you business types and political figures: more creativity and innovation of technologies? More jobs? …Sounds like ‘common sense’ would be good as a prevailing mindset!

It is impressive how most of you seem to know what the problem is. I wonder, if so many know, why is the world in trouble?

“The economically illiterate among us are easily persuaded that the stimulus is wrong, but it was really too little; look at how China is recovering because it implemented a proportionately (to its economic size) much larger stimulus.”
Posted by DonaldB, on November 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm EST

I think, this is one of the best. A note to the economically literate: have you ever thought that by pouring an infinite amount of money into an economy you might well end up with infinite GDP (the term “government spending” of the formula would be infinite)?

James:

NOBODY is suggesting pouring an infinite amount of money into an economy; just an amount that, relative to the size of that economy, will provide the growth that would OTHERWISE be produced, but is blocked by what the economists call a liquidity trap. That is when interest rates are at near zero but NOT producing growth, which would need a negative interest rate. In such circumstances the only options are to use an appropriate amount of fiscal stimulus or wait for years while the economy limps along with trillions of dollars of lost production from underutilization of capital and labor. The cost in terms of human lives is immesureable, from college graduates who cannot find jobs for months or years and NEVER make it up.

James:

The world is in trouble because people want to put their own interests above anyone else’s, even when doing so will hurt them in the near future, because they have some ideological set of blinders or are just driven by short-term greed.

Climate change/global warming is already effecting the planet. If you don’t believe or don’t know about climate change – educate yourself through reading. The world is facing the most catastrophic changes for humanity and all living things on this planet within our lives. By becoming educated you can educate others and also learn how to reduce your own carbon footprint.

@Brett

Good info. However, while these scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between periods of climatic warming and increased CO2 levels, the data from these studies show that it is the warming that occurs FIRST, followed closely thereafter by the increase in CO2—not vice-versa.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Create a world wide climate emergency, call it climate change or climate warming(can’t say that now, we are in a climate cool down cycle) tell the people its do are die and you can name your price. Whether its true or not is very important to both sides of the argument, but! there is something even more important than what the headlines are reporting. As with the 1990 page healthcare, has anyone read the Copenhagen treaty they want us to sign? I expect none of you have. It might be worth reading before you sign on the dotted line. Here is a link to it: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/docu… A creation of a world government?

Page 18: Section 38 of the “Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan” contains the text for forming the new government.

Page 44-45: Section 46 “Objectives, scope, and guiding principles” contains the text for enforcement and establishment

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I smell wealth redistribution from our country to the 3rd world countries.

A study showed that cow farts did more harm to the atmosphere than Co2? Who do you trust these days?

“The economically illiterate among us are easily persuaded that the stimulus is wrong, but it was really too little; look at how China is recovering because it implemented a proportionately (to its economic size) much larger stimulus.”

Bad analysis. China has huge currency reserves to deploy, whereas we (who already need to borrow and print to raise cash) need to borrow and print even more agressively. I agree that Keynesian stimulus can work for countries with large reserves, but less so for debtor nations, especially the world’s biggest debtor nation.

The smart money doesn’t believe the US will make good on the debt, which is why the FCBs have been trying to divest their dollar assets as fast as possible without causing a landslide. Don’t take my word for it, look at the charts: dollar vs. oil, gold, silver, copper, euro, yen, and S&P 500.

“The IMF is slated to sell another 200 metric tons of gold, and many analysts expect China to be a significant buyer. The Russian central bank has also expressed interest in expanding its gold hoard.”

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/04/markets/gold/?postversion=2009110406

“Professional investors aren’t the only ones dumping the dollar. In Russia, where the dollar was the benchmark after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, residents are increasingly turning to the euro.”

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Markets/Forex/Dollar-losing-its-luster-but-still-reigns-globally/articleshow/5200395.cms

Democrats (Socialists), didn’t you learn aything from your painful defeats in New Jersey and Virginia?? Americans don’t want to pay higher gas and energy taxes, particularly when the economy is in the toilet. But please Democrats, continue to push hard for higher energy and gas taxes. I really want to see the Democrat party back as the minority party.

“Hmmm….what else do we need to do? We sent him to the White House for 4 years based on his message of Hope and Change, gave his party overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate – even to the extent of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I can bet that the members of the Congress have also continued to give themselves pay raises even in tough economic times, so they are getting paid – very well – to do their job.”

Ok, I’m pretty certain your plainly just a intellectually dishonest person and the above statement you made.

1. one he came into the white house with 58 active member One was a Republican who later switched over i’m sure you know who that is? and the other Al Franken who could not come cause His republican rival kept him in court for months, repeal after repeal i’m sure you know this as well. when the switch came it was dishonest of people like yourself to say the dems had there 60 votes when the governor didnt sign the paper for Al F. Than i’m sure you know this Teddy K. health further failed as well. Lets not forget Joe L who is a independent that goes with the Dems as well

You keep making intellectual dishonest arguments when you seem to know full well what your doing so. I’m sure your aware that the house needs the senate to pass a filibuster proof bill giving a few say blue dogs alot of power. I’m sure your aware the republicans would filibuster for the sake of it.

Since you like using Jon S. to justify your anything but contributing statements, wanna post the ones about the blue dogs dems, or the one on republican and hate crimes, or republicans on this very topic (global warming) or how about the one with republicans saying if a company such as haliburton who allowed women to get gang raped and no recourse there nothing wrong with the government still working with them and not of its business.

You make it sound as if once in office the president is a Monarchy and everything he wants everyone with follow or that everything will magically been repaired after years of neglect.

Sorry to say its a democracy currently made up of a lot of people in a big tent often times trying to work together and find common ground.

Not all Dems are monolithic like you constantly make if out to seem.

But hey that’s how some people are the danger is if such views gets in office and runs the country (Bush)

p.s. brett your wasting your time with todd, he doesn’t believe in global warming, evolution, and believes in the New World Order so i doubt whatever you say is going to change his mind. But on the bright side others can view the information you, Donald and David posted to better inform themselves.

Louise your so silly you make my day sometimes,

“didn’t you learn anything from your painful defeats in New Jersey and Virginia?? Americans don’t want to pay higher gas and energy taxes, particularly when the economy is in the toilet. But please Democrats, continue to push hard for higher energy and gas taxes. I really want to see the Democrat party back as the minority party.”

Than what would you complain about than? why point out to democrats that they losses so painfully like you say?
Don’t you think if you do that they might change strategy and keep there majority. than wouldn’t you be kicking yourself in the butt for allowing them to keep their majority? Hows those socialist benefits working out for you I sure you don’t use them since you feel so strongly about socialism?

Thanks in part to the government and USMC.

On a another note atleast we are talking about actually or partly doing something about global warming. Instead of the heads in the sand approach.

At the very lest I can see the government nostrils on this one.

Todd,
I am no scientist; none of us commenting here seems to be; but, there is agreement in the scientific community that all documented periods known as ice ages have ended because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases (this effect is in part produced by carbon dioxide), which caused warming. Gases present in the greenhouse effect (the most prominent ones, anyway) are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFC’s.

Some ice age periods have been extreme, followed by more extreme warming; some mild periods known as ice ages have been followed by mild periods of warming, but it WAS the accumulation of greenhouse gases that caused the warming, effectively ending, in all accounts, the ice age periods.

In looking at all times preceding prehistoric times, scientists, in amassing data, have only been able to ball park the timelines of periods of cooling, greenhouse gas accumulation and warming. They can’t pinpoint those periods down to a specific day, week , month, or even year. So, for you to draw the conclusion that co2 emissions follow the warming process, it seems you would have to possess data that would definitively have those timelines pinpointed to precise dates in time. So much so, that they could show a beginning, specific date of when warming started and when co2 emissions started. Again, I am not well-read on the body of data documenting climate change from the earliest well-documented ice age BETWEEN 850-603 million years ago, but I know of no legitimately published scientific research that can prove co2 emissions followed warming trends. No empirical evidence that would have consistently shown that trend exists, as far as I know. Your idea seems to be contrary to what scientists say.

I do know that there is a direct correlation between the cooling and warming process. Some accumulation of greenhouse gases is indeed a natural part of the process. Spikes in the data, however, indicate something outside of normal cyclical activity; one such spike (a huge spike) would have occurred during the timeline when large mammals began to abruptly disappear from the earth, for example.

In pre-industrial times, concentration of those gases were roughly constant. Since the beginning of the industrial era, human activity has caused a spike in greenhouse gas accumulation. The burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests seem to have worked in concert to account for this.

We are currently at the end of an “ice age.” So, there ARE natural greenhouse gas accumulations occurring as part of a cyclical pattern. The spikes are the concern, though; those increases not accounted for in normal activity.

‘A study showed that cow farts did more harm to the atmosphere than Co2? Who do you trust these days?’ -David @7:16pm Nov. 5th

To greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide contributes 9-26%; methane itself contributes 4-9%. Cow farts account for a very small portion of methane presence in our atmosphere, so their contribution to the aforementioned methane percentages is even way smaller then 4%.

It is interesting…well, maybe interesting isn’t the right word…that you are willing to believe in fantastic, vast conspiracy theories, but are disinclined to look at the consensus view among scientists.

Maybe you should take a serious look at whom you DO trust!

Brett, you might want to further investigate what the true aim of this Copenhagen meeting is all about. Who is pushing the Climate change issue the most. The countries who stand to gain the most in the redistribution of wealth due to the penalties the so-called Co2 polluters will pay to them according to the treaty. The cow fart example was just one of many reasons people are using to explain climate change. Methane is more harmful than Co2. Co2 is essential for plant life, maybe we need to limit people growth and plant more trees? The EPA sat on a report that showed that our globe had started a cooling cycle. Other findings showed that during the warming period there were more sun spot activity during that time. We are now in a less sun spot activity period, guess what? we are showing a cooling down cycle. Who knows who is telling the truth? There is more money to be made in a climate change emergency.

@Brett

Yes indeed, there is scientific data using ice core samples that show warming occurs first, then comes the increase in CO2. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. Of six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006, all six found atmospheric CO2 concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, BUT with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up–or down—-and carbon dioxide following, ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

But, even if this CO2 lag were not the case, consider also:

By volume, CO2 comprises approximately 0.0383% of Earth’s atmosphere and water vapor 0.4% (and typically 1-4% water vapor at the surface). This surface water vapor, extant within the first 50 ft. or so (above ground), absorbs approximately 80% of the Sun’s heat energy radiated from the surface. And how much is absorbed by CO2? Carbon dioxide absorbs a mere 0.08% (that’s eight-hundredths of 1%). You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling CO2! It’s quite clear that water vapor, not CO2, is the dominant factor in causing the greenhouse effect.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no warming of the Earth whatsoever without the Sun. Rarely, if ever, do the man-made global warming alarmists ever acknowledge the Sun/solar cycles as being THE primary factor in the warming process. Solar cycles can certainly affect the amount of radiant energy reaching—and being trapped by—the Earth’s atmosphere.

“There is more money to be made in a climate change emergency.”
Posted by david

Exactly right! Want the true story? Just follow the money…

After reading all the above comments, I still don’t know if there is a true climatic emergency. Scientists, statistics, and anecdotal evidence provided in abundance by both sides. Is it possible that we just don’t know or aren’t sure? Some awfully big sacrifices to make for individuals without knowing for sure.

Todd,
Well, yeah, the sun IS the primary factor warming the earth! Duh!

And Co2 is second to water vapor as the most prominent gas making up the greenhouse effect. You and I have already established agreement that there are normal cycles with these. It is an unnatural spike in Co2 that is the concern. Water vapor feedback could potentially increase climate warming but that feedback would be due to carbon dioxide increase. Besides, what water vapor producing industry do we need to worry about?

It’s the measurement of Co2 that is currently at 383ppm (which exceeds the geological maxima) and its increase of 70ppm in 40 years that is what is troublesome. Combustion-produced Co2 seems to be suspect. Ice core data show a pre-industrial level of 270ppm. In the ice core data “reach-back” of 650.000 years, levels have been as low as 180ppm.

Todd,
Can you give me the names/websites that show data of those peer-reviewed, scientific journals with the six separate papers about Antarctica ice core studies? Sincerely, I’d like to look over some of that stuff. Thanks.

David,
I want to say that observing corruption and opportunism behaviors doesn’t necessarily constitute observing a far reaching conspiracy of a new world order or global domination (although “they” probably sometimes can dream of such). I’m sure corporations and governments will distort data, and have and will engage in things that we mere mortals find unconscionable, but that doesn’t prove a problem does not exist. In conspiracy theories, as in science, it’s always good not to leap to a conclusion too quickly.

Could you be more specific about the phrase “cooling trend”? Are you saying that good science as it applies to climate change should be to develop and define theories within a very brief timeline of 10years? Would this work better than looking at a timeline of 150 years or 100’s of thousands of years? Science defines our current time climatically as a mild ice age, but we are coming out of it at a much faster rate than we should be. It’s the fluctuations in terms of frequency and intensity, as well as duration, that truly matter.

Cory,
I suppose the dispute would be who’s definition of “emergency” do we go by and how does it relate to the history of climate on earth. When people say “emergency” and we are shown images from sensational movies of climatic cataclysm, or one might see one of those shows on the History channel showing digitized animation of complete and total destruction of the earth, some are (either deliberately wrongfully or inadvertently) implying the kind of imminent tragedy that would require us to prepare by carrying a potion of hemlock around in a pinky ring. I don’t think we are there, but we do need to think about what the world will be like within the next 500 years if we don’t do something differently.

I don’t see what some of us as individuals currently do to reduce our carbon footprint as being all that much of a sacrifice. I also don’t think if we have to live with much deeper changes in our lives we would suffer all that much as human beings. Now, the corporate world and governments would have to significantly behave differently, which would be a huge sacrifice for them.

One would think once the scientists get a good understanding of global warming (as they have), there would be no need for persuading. There are wonderful arguments here, strong voices, in this forum. So what?
I have seen sensible educated people move directly from saying global warming is a myth to saying it is too late and that the people of earth as a species should age and die gracefully, try to be nice in our dying century. There is no in-between. I don’t know which side to argue, to A who can’t believe it, or to B who gives up.
Politics warps this, due to “interests” (lobbies, economics) and voters A, B, and other. I hope Copenhagen can transcend it all.

Todd’s argument that it is the sun has been disproven. Yes, the sun causes some radiative forcings. (And no one would deny the importance of factors like Milankovitch’s theories about eccentricity, precession, and obliquity in the Earth’s orbit.) But this denial of anthropogenic forcings is now insupportable and almost laughable if it weren’t so serious. To return to the Sunspot point, sun contributes to an RF of .12 W m-2; this is far smaller than the 1.66 RF W m-2 for CO2. Not to mention CH4 and anthropogenic aerosols.

The world’s not going to turn into a frying pan in decades to come. Not at all. But it’s changing profoundly because of human activity.

I prefer that we focus on steps to mitigate GHG emissions as well as focus on adaptability, rather than give self-styled skeptics more attention than they merit.

‘I prefer that we focus on steps to mitigate GHG emissions as well as focus on adaptability, rather than give self-styled skeptics more attention than they merit.’ -Greg

Well said, and thanks for putting the sunspot myth into perspective using some data! AND for mentioning how a denial of anthropogenic emissions is unsupportable.

One main point was left out of this podcast’s discussion on climate change, namely the global politics surrounding the issue. It is incredulous to ask developing countries like China and India to reduce emissions at the same level at the United States given that global warming has been caused by the growing wealth of the West. It is the responsibility of developed countries to take the lead in emissions reductions, subsidizing the efforts of developing countries in their move towards more sustainable development. Senators like the one from Ohio are completely missing this moral obligation.