Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Riverwind]

This norhtern country was able to reduce its carbon emissions to below 1990 level: Statistics Finland. Which proves that your pseudo science is wrong. Again.

You are a riot. did you even try to look into the reasons for Finland's "success" or did you just assume that it must mean something?

http://www.energy-enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE...=570&LANG=1

In 2005, greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 69.3 Mt of CO2 equivalent, which is almost three per cent less than in 1990. The low emissions resulted mostly from reasons other than actual measures aimed at their reduction.

...

Due to the excellent water situation, Finland was able to import a record amount of electricity produced with CO2 free hydro power from the Nordic electricity markets. National production of condensate electricity with fossil fuels and peat fell. Emissions from the energy industry decreased in 2005 by 34 per cent from the previous year.

In other words it was a fluke due to favourable weather conditions and there is no reason to believe that it could be sustained over the long term.

CO2 reductions are a shell game and most reductions in European countries have ocurred because they exported CO2 producing industries to other countries (China ships more goods to Europe than it does to the US now). At this this time there is zero evidence that CO2 reductions on a global scale are possible.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Other research has since indicated the same, including specific research around foliar nitrogen. increasing CO2 reduces foliar nitrogen, reducing the nutritional content of the leaves, as in this study from Smithsonian Environmental Research Center:

If CO2 'enrichment' is bad for plants then why do greenhouse operators routinely inject CO2 into their greenhouses? Levels of 1000-1500ppm are fairly common.

We are effectively conducting a massive experiment on earth without really knowing the eventual results. THAT is a little too high risk for me.

Condemning billions to poverty and early death by taking away access to energy is too high a price to pay to deal with a hypothetical problem. Edited June 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

How many lives will be saved when we drive oil up to $200 a barrel. How many 3rd world countries will be able to afford fertilizer ? How many people will be able to buy food from the farmer who can afford the fertilizer and pesticide.

Actually. We have plenty of coal and this can produce plently of electricity - more than enough to replace oil. However, the AGW zealots don't want to let people build coal power electricity anymore which will delay the transition from an oil based to an electricity based transportation sector and ultimately impose unnessary suffering on billions.

[Riverwind]

Ummm.... One of these guys is a economist from a right wing think tank while the other is a former mining executive with only a BSc in math. Where did they get their expertise in climate science ?

They are experts in statistics which is a integral part of the hockey stick paper. Their analysis was reviewed an supported by Edward J. Wegman - one of the top statisticians in the US. There would likely be a lot fewer AGW skeptics today if the climate science community had not tried to defend the hockey stick. The fact that many still continue to defend the indefensible is a pretty strong evidence that they are zealots who cannot be trusted to look at the scientific evidence objectively. Edited June 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

I looked at the list of papers. I have to admit I did not understand a lot of it. But from reading the abstracts, it is a very poor list. Many of the papers are not anti-AGW. Most seem to be AGW agnostic. The ones that are anti-AGW tend to be old (outdated), published in journals that are unrelated to climate change (petroleum ), or published in journals that are not recognized (as anything but a place where climate deniers can publish crap).

I find this game by alarmists to be quite absurd. First they try to dismiss skeptical views by claiming there is no peer reviewed research and when forced to admit that this claim is false they try to claim that the papers don't count because they are not in the 'correct' jounrnals. In the end this argument simply supoprts my claim that the scientific community has a bad case of tunnel vision and only looks at science which supports their views.

More importantly, it only takes one 'right' paper to prove a 1000 papers wrong so one does not measure the quality of science by the volume of papers. One measures the quality of science by its ability to predict outcomes - a measure that AGW has failed to meet for many years. The recent climate trends actually support the skeptical views better (i.e. the view that the amoung of CO2 induced warming has been grossly over estimated).

Edited June 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

I find this game by alarmists to be quite absurd. First they try to dismiss skeptical views by claiming there is no peer reviewed research and when forced to admit that this claim is false they try to claim that the papers don't count because they are not in the 'correct' jounrnals.

This is not about "correct journals". When you say "peer reviewed journal" people have an expectation that it is recognized in the scientific community, has an editorial board made up of experts in the field and scientists actually read it.

The "peer reviewed journal" that some of those papers were published in is unknown in the scientific community (thought sometimes quoted by politicians). It is run by a lady who describes herself as a political scientists, who HAS NEVER TAKEN A UNIVERSITY SCIENCE COURSE. SHe says she is becoming more skeptical of global warming because more scientists are believing in it (good scientific reasoning). It is available in only 17 libraries world wide.

I could start a peer reviewed journal in my basement that only published articles blaming earth quakes on fat people. It would technically be a peer reviewed journal, but I would be misleading people if I put on a resume that I was the editor of a scientific journal.

By the same token I don't think you can really consider those papers as having come from a peer reviwed journal.

In the end this argument simply supoprts my claim that the scientific community has a bad case of tunnel vision and only looks at science which supports their views.

Uhhh...I don't follow. How does your dubious list or the dubious peer reviewed journal support your claim ?

The fact that there are all sorts of anti-AGW sites linking to that list, as well as the the list of "400 prominent scientists" supports my view that many of them don't have a clue what they are talking about.

As for scientists not looking at science that does not support their views. Thats false. Google a little bit and you will find rebutles of the anti-AGW stuff. People have read it, pointed out the flaws and moved on.

More importantly, it only takes one 'right' paper to prove a 1000 papers wrong

True, but it sure ain't in that list of 1500 :-}

[Riverwind]

Google a little bit and you will find rebutles of the anti-AGW stuff. People have read it, pointed out the flaws and moved on.

I have read all of the so called rebuttles that I have found. Once in a while I find a AGW argument that makes sense and will concede that point. For example, I don't try to argue that the CO2 rise is natural even though some skeptics do. However, most of the "rebuttles" are hypocritical nonsense do not really address the criticisms. In some cases, the counter arguments actually undermine AGW theory more than the skeptical arguments. For example, alarmists have tried to argue that virtually any temperature trend over 8 years is "consistent" with global warming but if that is the case then they cannot possibly argue that their CO2 attribution studies are conclusive because they could not possibily seperate the noise from the CO2 effect. They can't have both ways - either the recent temperature trends falsify AGW hypothesis or they have to admit that they don't know how much of the recent warming was natural and how much was CO2 induced.

You also ignored the more important links I provided to peer reviewed research ( http://climatesci.org/ ).

Edited June 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

You are a riot. did you even try to look into the reasons for Finland's "success" or did you just assume that it must mean something?

The fact remains fact - their emissions were below the level recorded in 1990. So it is actually possible (with favourable weather, meaningful effort etc). Which utterly disproves your previuos statement. And, if you read further around the goad for Finland is to keep the emissions at the 1990 level. Another impossibility, according to Harper and yourself.

So, keep moving the gate. That seems to be all you people are capable of. Because, as already pointed out, for you it's a matter of belief. And if people can believe in fairies and little green men, I can't see why AGW would merit any different. There'll be always someone around throwing outrageous, uncofirmed, questionable and plain wrong "hypotheses". And no lack of believers to loud them in them in the forums because that's what they happen to like. You can't provide confirmed peer reviewed and accepted by scientific community arguments against climate change model; you can't deny a fact that reducing emissions to the 1990 level is practically possible.

What is then the point you actually want to make?

CO2 reductions are a shell game and most reductions in European countries have ocurred because they exported CO2 producing industries to other countries (China ships more goods to Europe than it does to the US now). At this this time there is zero evidence that CO2 reductions on a global scale are possible.

OK, now you aren't gonna move your finger till somebody proves that it's possible "on the global scale". I think that position is now made crystal clear. You aren't going to bother doing anything simply because you don't want to. Don't believe. No matter what. Scientific evidence, examples of others mean nothing to a true believer. If the future turns nasty, they'll write it down to the wrath of God, and die in glory.

[stevoh]

If CO2 'enrichment' is bad for plants then why do greenhouse operators routinely inject CO2 into their greenhouses? Levels of 1000-1500ppm are fairly common.

Because they can compensate for the nitrogen and other imbalances through fertilizer, something that every plant growing in nature cannot do.

Condemning billions to poverty and early death by taking away access to energy is too high a price to pay to deal with a hypothetical problem.

Condemning billions to poverty and early death by refusing to deal with the issue now is too high price to pay for every future generation that will ever exist on earth.

[Riverwind]

The fact remains fact - their emissions were below the level recorded in 1990. So it is actually possible (with favourable weather, meaningful effort etc).

Whoppie do. You found one example of a tiny country that was way above their 1990 limits but due to fortunate weather circumstances was able to reduce their emissions to that level. The fact that you could only find this single tenuous example actually supports my claim that meaningful emissions reductions are impossible unless there is an unexpected technology breakthrough. If you are going to be pedantic I can modify that claim to include unexpected changes in weather or any other act of god that has nothing to do with government policies.

Look at the stats: it will take 50+ years to replace the existing electrical power plants if we replaced them with one plant a day assuming that we don't need to increase our generation capacity. It is not going to happen no matter what you might believe. Pursuing policies designed to do the impossible happen is a waste of time and will likely hurt more people than the alleged climate change will.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Condemning billions to poverty and early death by refusing to deal with the issue now is too high price to pay for every future generation that will ever exist on earth.

If you are so convinced that the problem is so bad then you should be calling for strict population controls. You refuse to do so which demonstrates that you talk the the talk but are not willing to walk the walk.

In any case, your fears about plant productivity don't make any sense since CO2 used to be much higher than today. There is a lot of research that supports the premise that higher CO2 will be good for plants and good for the creatures that eat plants. Here is one link to several studies on the potato: http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/agriculturepotato.php

Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Look at the stats: it will take 50+ years to replace the existing electrical power plants if we replaced them with one plant a day assuming that we don't need to increase our generation capacity. It is not going to happen no matter what you might believe. Pursuing policies designed to do the impossible happen is a waste of time and will likely hurt more people than the alleged climate change will.

Right, right. The new and improved logic now goes like this: "show me that them emissions can be actually and practically reduced, on the global scale, all around me, and then I'll (maybe) bother to move my bum".

Really, them scientists and experts who devised the emissions targets and goals they could have gotten it terribly wrong. The only proof I can accept is the actual experiment. I.e until I see them emissions go down, I'm not gonna bother doing darn arse about reducing them.

Nice and solid argument. The best yet. I'm not gonna do anything until I see the change. Me, him, everybody doing nothing. No change! What's needed to be proved.

Excellent! Guess what? You've just proven the great theorem of the Conservative: change is impossible. Present (and better still, glorious past) frozen in time, forever!

Granted, there's that small qualification ("darn arse" clause), but still a commendable effort. And you have all the time in the world to keep working on it (e.g "doing" could be too strong a limitation; talking is doing, right? If I keep saying that environment is my priority, and the emissions will come done by 2050 (because I tell them to), it's already doing something; maybe even a lot; worthy of broadcasting around the country and sharing with others in the world). There's a promising new line of further research. Enjoy!

[Riverwind]

Really, them scientists and experts who devised the emissions targets and goals they could have gotten it terribly wrong. The only proof I can accept is the actual experiment. I.e until I see them emissions go down, I'm not gonna bother doing darn arse about reducing them.

How many years have people been searching or fusion power? Billions have been poured into fuel cell research yet we still don't have an economic fuel cell car. It is naive to assume that technical innovations will occur simply because the government says they must. We need access to energy and the current technology is all we have and we cannot afford to abandon it until we have practical alternatives.

It is worth remembering that in 1917 a group a people used the power of the state to force an entire society use an ineffective economic system. This system imposed a huge amount of suffering on billions and we are still living with the consequences even if the system collapsed in 1989. That experience should be a lesson to us today. Rhetoric cannot make the impossible happen.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

How many years have people been searching or fusion power? Billions have been poured into fuel cell research yet we still don't have an economic fuel cell car. It is naive to assume that technical innovations will occur simply because the government says they must. We need access to energy and the current technology is all we have and we cannot afford to abandon it until we have practical alternatives.

It is worth remembering that in 1917 a group a people used the power of the state to force an entire society use an ineffective economic system. This system imposed a huge amount of suffering on billions and we are still living with the consequences even if the system collapsed in 1989. That experience should be a lesson to us today. Rhetoric cannot make the impossible happen.

Its also worth remembering that the technical innovations that were required to defeat the evil empire did occur when a government demanded them. Why not in the case of an alternative to oil?

It seems to me that finding an alternative to oil is a tad more important than flying to the moon, don't you think? Do you believe the private sector would have built NASA or defeated the Soviet Union its own? I suppose it could be argued that the private sector did do these things but it took a government to marshall the resources of that private sector to do so.

Why can't it do so in the case of an alternative energy source? I think its simply because it couldn't be bothered to myself. Governments seem to be more interested in securing the last dwindling pools of oil for the benefit of a few corporations. Talk about forcing an entire society to use an ineffective economic system...

[myata]

How many years have people been searching or fusion power? Billions have been poured into fuel cell research yet we still don't have an economic fuel cell car.

Wrong, as usual. Honda just released a 100% hydrogen powered model, if you follow the news.

We need access to energy and the current technology is all we have and we cannot afford to abandon it until we have practical alternatives.

Alternatives like conservation; renewable energy sources; clean technologies; All are impractical, or even impossible?

Yet wind farms operate all around the world, even in Quebec. Finland has their emissions at 1990 level.

"Practical" is in the eye of the beholder. If for somebody who fears, dislikes and shuns all change, the only thing practical is to sit on their hands and do nothing, nothing will come out, for sure. You've already proven it, remember?

Then, who's saying "abandon"? Only you.. Simplification, for the lack of better arguments?

Rhetoric cannot make the impossible happen.

As irrational beliefs, fear of action and lack of will can and will make possible not happen.

[Fortunata]

Wrong, as usual. Honda just released a 100% hydrogen powered model, if you follow the news.

Alternatives like conservation; renewable energy sources; clean technologies; All are impractical, or even impossible?

Yet wind farms operate all around the world, even in Quebec. Finland has their emissions at 1990 level.

"Practical" is in the eye of the beholder. If for somebody who fears, dislikes and shuns all change, the only thing practical is to sit on their hands and do nothing, nothing will come out, for sure. You've already proven it, remember?

Then, who's saying "abandon"? Only you.. Simplification, for the lack of better arguments?

As irrational beliefs, fear of action and lack of will can and will make possible not happen.

Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce? And hydrogen is impractical still as there are no outlets. Once they are established it will be a viable alternative but it's a catch 22. Outlets will not exist until there are enough consumers and consumers won't exist until there are enough outlets.

If one lives in the city it is impractical to think every house/apartment/condo can install their own wind/solar generators. It is impractical to think that every household can afford to move to the country to be able to utilize these alternatives; it is impractical to think all country people can afford to move to the city to be able to utilize public transportation. Farmers need fuel, lots of fuel, to farm. Truckers need lots of fuel to haul goods around. While it is great to buy locally (and people should) local is not available all year around and in every community. Take the north (Yellowknife); one cannot grow enough locally to support the community in summer let alone winter. Oil prices will force people to stop consuming but at the detriment of the economy; you can see it happening already.

[stevoh]

If you are so convinced that the problem is so bad then you should be calling for strict population controls. You refuse to do so which demonstrates that you talk the the talk but are not willing to walk the walk.

My refusal to do so demonstrates that I understand there has to be a balance between human and environmental interests.

In any case, your fears about plant productivity don't make any sense since CO2 used to be much higher than today. There is a lot of research that supports the premise that higher CO2 will be good for plants and good for the creatures that eat plants. Here is one link to several studies on the potato: http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/agriculturepotato.php

Ah, you are misunderstanding me. Yes, the potatoes grow larger. But the larger potatoes CONTAIN LESS NUTRIENTS. So you have to eat more to get the same nutritional value.

I couldn't find any links on the website link you sent me that speak to that specific issue. Yes, yields get higher and higher with greater concentrations, but where is the nutritional analysis?

So, I looked to other websites and found this:

Max Taub, an associate professor of biology at Southwestern, did a "meta-analysis" of previous research that had been done on the effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on the protein concentrations in barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato.

His study found that the crops had significantly lower protein concentrations when grown in atmospheres containing elevated levels of carbon dioxide. Potatoes showed a nearly 14 percent decrease in protein, while the grain crops of barley, rice and wheat showed reductions of 15.3 percent, 9.9 percent and 9.8 percent respectively. The protein decrease in soybeans was much lower, at 1.4 percent.

So, yes, we have huge potatoes with less protein. Uhm, Yay?

On another matter, one of the experiments you linked to have the following information:

Plessl et al. say their results "clearly demonstrated that the potato cultivar Indira, which under normal conditions shows a high susceptibility to P. infestans, develops resistance against this pathogen after exposure to 700 ppm CO2," noting that "this finding agrees with results from Ywa et al. (1995), who reported an increased tolerance of tomato plants to Phytophthora root rot when grown at elevated CO2." These similar observations bode well for both potato and tomato cultivation in a CO2-enriched world of the future.

Your conclusion "good for the creatures that eat plants" is in direct contradiction with an expermental result you linked to. The pathogen that eats the potato is considerably harmed. Sure, in this context its fine, as we don't want the pathogen to eat our precious potatoes. But in nature, pathogens and other organisms are part of the complex cycle that perpetuates life.

The experiment results state that the plant "develops resistance" to the pathogen, but do not detail what that resistance is. Is a specific chemical involved that the potato produces more of? I wonder if, like the leaf miners mentioned earlier, the pathogen is responding to the reduced nutritional value of the potato, as opposed to an otherwise unknown resistance mechanism being increased. Or perhaps the pathogen itself does not survive well in higher CO2 temperatures (which is an even worse result).

These unknown answers are critical. Because, while a greenhouse or otherwise cultivated plant is grown in controlled conditions, plants in our natural ecosystems have a key role in how the whole ecosystem fuctions. They are at the base of the food chain, effecting everything above. If increasing CO2 means that plants all become "more resistant" to those that feed on them (whether through reduced nutritional value or other means) then the other organisms that rely on these plants will reduce in population (as has been shown in the leaf miner and other experiments).

So, CO2 increase, great for plant growth, lousy for nutrition, bad for all organisms that rely on plants.

Edited June 19, 2008 by stevoh

[eyeball]

Outlets will not exist until there are enough consumers and consumers won't exist until there are enough outlets.

Governments need to step in and pass legislation that phases out the old to make room for the new. That's what it did to replace cow-trails with highways right? I think the main argument for nationalizing oil is to ensure that the funds are there to pay for the transition. I have severe doubts in the effiacy of our privatized economy to meet the demand for long term alternatives. The short term desire for profits is just too great and the resultuing wealth is corrupting the power of our governments to do anything.

The juxtaposition of energy, power and wealth is an interesting one. I don't think its a coincidence that the phrase 'going off the grid' is viewed as a threat by governments and energy producers alike. There are some really deep-rooted dependancy issues around energy, power and wealth that I think are showing through the cracks in our economy. Despite assurances that the market is the only thing driving oil prices, people just are not buying this excuse. I think most are leaning towards a collusion between sellers that's largely facilitated by politicians looking the other way. Perhaps wealth (the type that really stinks) is concerned that alternative energy sources will lead to alternative economic systems, not too mention new power systems.

Despite my observation that governments did demand and get the technical innovations they needed to defeat an alternative economic system, the fact is I more firmly believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed under the weight of its own crap and corruption anyway. Our system is likely going to collapse too, for much the same reasons.

Edited June 19, 2008 by eyeball

[noahbody]

So, yes, we have huge potatoes with less protein. Uhm, Yay?

My God, 14% less protein in a potato?!!

That means insead of eating 80 potatoes a day to meet my protein requirements, I'll have to eat 14% more!

[Wild Bill]

Right, right. The new and improved logic now goes like this: "show me that them emissions can be actually and practically reduced, on the global scale, all around me, and then I'll (maybe) bother to move my bum".

Really, them scientists and experts who devised the emissions targets and goals they could have gotten it terribly wrong. The only proof I can accept is the actual experiment. I.e until I see them emissions go down, I'm not gonna bother doing darn arse about reducing them.

Nice and solid argument. The best yet. I'm not gonna do anything until I see the change. Me, him, everybody doing nothing. No change! What's needed to be proved.

Excellent! Guess what? You've just proven the great theorem of the Conservative: change is impossible. Present (and better still, glorious past) frozen in time, forever!

Granted, there's that small qualification ("darn arse" clause), but still a commendable effort. And you have all the time in the world to keep working on it (e.g "doing" could be too strong a limitation; talking is doing, right? If I keep saying that environment is my priority, and the emissions will come done by 2050 (because I tell them to), it's already doing something; maybe even a lot; worthy of broadcasting around the country and sharing with others in the world). There's a promising new line of further research. Enjoy!

You might want to calm down and have a coffee. You're getting a bit righteous!

You're exaggerating a bit when you say why some folks don't agree with you. You might consider it from a different perspective.

You seem to be saying that you don't know yourself if some of the GW fans's approaches are practical or cost-effective but you're willing to place your confidence in them, particularly when you consider the problem real and dire.

Not everyone agrees with you. Some of us know enough of the science to have problems accepting the approaches championed by the GW crowd. We know enough that we have grievous doubts about their premises. We believe that many of these approaches will cost vast sums of money and do not appear to have much chance of doing anything positive.

You brand this as foolish because 1: we should just accept your experts and deny any contradictions with what education we already have and

2. we should get on board because it's IMPORTANT and doing ANYTHING is better than NOTHING!

Sorry! I'll give you the same answer I gave the Witnesses who came to my door this afternoon. "I just can't accept your beliefs on what evidence and argument you have to offer. I'm just not a man of faith."

[Topaz]

As far as the "attack ads" go, its just the same as when they are in Question Period never answer a question just attack and attack, I don't think most of Canadians like that part of politics.

[eyeball]

"I just can't accept your beliefs on what evidence and argument you have to offer. I'm just not a man of faith."

I hear you, I feel precisely the same way about economists these days.

[myata]

Not everyone agrees with you. Some of us know enough of the science to have problems accepting the approaches championed by the GW crowd. We know enough that we have grievous doubts about their premises. We believe that many of these approaches will cost vast sums of money and do not appear to have much chance of doing anything positive.

...

Sorry! I'll give you the same answer I gave the Witnesses who came to my door this afternoon. "I just can't accept your beliefs on what evidence and argument you have to offer. I'm just not a man of faith."

Why should I say it all over again? If you know enough of science, and aren't convinced by certain scientific argument, you'd very likely discuss it in a qualified forum in which, following defined rules and standards, where a certain meaningful conclusion can be reached.

What you insist on bouncing around unconfirmed pseudo scientific rumours and ideas in a Web forum, may be a symptom that you don't. Even if you think/believe etc otherwise.

...

Being that (not a man of faith), you have the choice of accepting the advice of experts in the field; or becoming one yourself and proving your point to other experts; the alternative is still a belief, even if you want to think that you're keeping an open mind; because without adequate knowledge in the subject, you guess or idea is groundless; and your judgment of some argument being true or false, is random chaotic matter of personal preference. Belief.

Think of it this way: somebody can't do simple additions. They're asked to do 2+2. They say: 7. They're told, no, not 7, 4, because there's a science, math, and it tells (everybody who understands it), that 2+2 is 4. They say, no, I don't like 4, I like 7, you must be wrong. Now, how on Earth will you ever convince them that 2+2 is 4, and not 7, if they won't learn the math??

[stevoh]

My God, 14% less protein in a potato?!!

That means insead of eating 80 potatoes a day to meet my protein requirements, I'll have to eat 14% more!

And all livestock on earth requires 14% more feed...

[Kleiniken]

Think of it this way: somebody can't do simple additions. They're asked to do 2+2. They say: 7. They're told, no, not 7, 4, because there's a science, math, and it tells (everybody who understands it), that 2+2 is 4. They say, no, I don't like 4, I like 7, you must be wrong. Now, how on Earth will you ever convince them that 2+2 is 4, and not 7, if they won't learn the math??

The only problem with this analogy is that their are checks and balances and proofs you can use to explain the premise that 2+2=4

The self admitted problem with global warming is that their is no scientific proof that C02 causes any warming at all. All the models and scientific studies are base on this one assumption.

I want to see some proof myself.

Prior to foregoing my daughters braces to pay Dion's carbon tax I'd want some hard proof.

This is why there is a debate, as their is no hard evidence also their is no actual warming, It's more of a religion that anything else. Some people are christians some jews and some don't believe at all.

A consensus among scientist is meaningless as their is always a consensus. Their was a consensus on neil Bohrs theory of the atom until new evidence arose and the theory changed. Their was a scientific consensu the earth was flat. Their was a scientific consensus that smoking was good for you.

Until C02 based Global warming is a scientific fact, or has as much evidence to support it as the theory of gravity, or I personally witness climate disasters, I vote we do nothing.