Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[eyeball]

I can't think of any adaptation more important to the survival of a human society than honesty and integrity in its government. Why can't Stephan Harper state in clear plain honest language that; "AGW is a fraud perpetrated by people who are determined to wreck the economy and the Conservative party will not be taking any action whatsoever or spending any further time even considering the issue. It is closed. Period"

Why can't he do that if he's so certain its the truth?

[Wild Bill]

I can't think of any adaptation more important to the survival of a human society than honesty and integrity in its government. Why can't Stephan Harper state in clear plain honest language that; "AGW is a fraud perpetrated by people who are determined to wreck the economy and the Conservative party will not be taking any action whatsoever or spending any further time even considering the issue. It is closed. Period"

Why can't he do that if he's so certain its the truth?

Because he would promptly lose the next election and then have NO power to steer Canada in what he feels is a positive direction, obviously!

A lot of people believe in Global Warming. Perhaps enough to defeat the Conservatives. There's likely similar numbers of people who believe in astrology or the I Ching.

Telling the truth has no positive value in maintaining political power in Canada. Decades of Liberal rule has taught us that! I learned it as a young lad watching Trudeau lambasting the Tories for suggesting price and wage controls, then imposing them himself when he got elected! Or poor Clark's "18 cents a gallon" gas increase, and then ol' Pete jammed it up even higher himself!

My point is, hypocrisy works and truth doesn't! That's just the way it is and there's no point railing against it. Canadians must want it that way or they wouldn't vote accordingly.

I'm sure if Harper heeded your advice your respect would be of great comfort to him as he sat on the opposition side of the house. Why don't you ask him to simply quit? It would make as much sense!

[eyeball]

I'm reminded of how many times I heard voters in Ontario say "he said what he meant and he meant what he said" when Mike Harris was elected, even after he lost people still said that.

Imagine the left trying to respond to Harper stating something like; "The Liberals and NDP like politicians everywhere, rely on lying to get elected. I want to offer something truly different for a change but I'm afraid honesty might cost me the election".

"How can I best offer change you can count on?"

[WIP]

If the animals. plants ect can adapt so can we. Humans make the environment adapt to them.

You realize that this planet has been around for almost 5 billion years and during the history of complex, multicellular lifeforms (which only goes back a little over 500 million years, there have been at least 15 mass extinctions that resulted in the majority of plant and animal species becoming extinct and allowing the few survivors to flourish and fill all sorts of ecological niches that they previously couldn't compete in. When geologists and paleontologists started developing a science of analyzing the deep rock layers a couple of centuries ago, they noticed sharp distinctions between the "age of amphibians", the "age of reptiles" and the "age of mammals" where there seemed to be almost complete changeovers in plant and animal life, with less dramatic abrupt changes within each age. They didn't know the reasons for these abrupt changes in lifeforms then, but increased knowledge has revealed that the agent of change came from the planet itself. If one of those extinctions was total and completely eradicated life on earth, there would be no environmental skeptics around today to take a nonchalant attitude towards the present crisis.

I will say again, CARBON DIOXIDE is not the problem. For what is is worth, all humans and living things on this planet (except for plants) create more CO2 than anyything else around. Including industry. There are 6 billion of us carbon dioxide producing humans on this planet. AND GROWING. CARBON DIOXIDE IS GOOD FOR PLANTLIFE !!!!

Ever get too much of a good thing? Past mass extinctions line up with periods when volcanic activity caused huge increases in CO2 levels, and CO2 works in an inverse relationship with oxygen; the periods when O2 levels are high, Co2 is low and vice versa. An increase in atmospheric CO2 levels not only means rising air temperatures, it also means more CO2 absorbed in groundwater and in the oceans, and lower oxygen levels in the oceans. This would be a return of anoxic conditions that killed off marine life during some of the worst extinctions such as the Permian/Triassic.

You have not been around power plants or even mining facilities at all eh? You could also blame the engineers and designers of the facility, to see if the damn was not built properly or there was some major structure problems that were never looked at. Things break all the time. So look at other things before you say that coal burning=bad.

coal burning = bad when it is the single greatest source of sulphur emissions from man-made sources and the biggest source of man-made CO2 production, and utility companies all around the world want to build more coal-fired generating stations. And, like I mentioned previously, that toxic waste dump in Tennessee shows that "clean coal" is a danger to land and groundwater when it is prevented from reaching the atmosphere.

I am from Sudbury Ont. I can tell you carbon dioxide is a minor if not insignificant player in the equation. Sulphur spewed from the largest mining stack in the world is spread over a large area. Before there was a smaller stack, and much of the vegitation around the city had died. The larger stack threw the stuff higher and farther and disperesed it over a larger area. Even with the reduced emissions over the decades, it still is a huge part of the contamination in and around the Sudbury area.

I grew up in Niagara Falls, and we had our own problems with sulphur from the abrasive and carborundum plants that used to be in the south end of the city, so I know what it smells like! But that giant smokestack you had up there at Inco dispersed its carbon dioxide for hundreds of miles, and was a contributor to rising CO2 levels.

This planet has gone through major life changes a few times in it's 4 billion + history. And you are being quite obtuse when talking about mass extinction and not including the big meteor rock that hit the planet to wipe out most life on this planet. You show the effect here, but you forgot the cause.

Unfortunately, since dinosaurs are about the only extinct animal forms that capture the public attention, this is the only one of previous mass extinctions that the public has any awareness of. And the popular theory that the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction that wiped them out was caused by an asteroid hitting the Yucatan Peninsula and leaving the Chixulub crater, has never been universally accepted as THE main cause of the K/T extinction. There is a volcanic flood plain in India that formed at the time of the K/T, known as the Deccan Traps. Most geologists assumed that the Traps were formed over a long period of time, but new research indicates that the volcanic flood basalt formed during a shorter period of time and closely matches the patterns of extinction found in the rocks. On the other hand, new analysis of the Chixulub crater indicates that the asteroid or comet that caused it, hit the earth 300,000 years before the extinction cycle started -- this effectively removes the asteroid impact as having any strong connection with the demise of the dinosaurs and other animals and plants that died out at that time:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467764,00.html

Up till now, the K/T has been the only one of the past extinctions that had been regarded as caused by an extraterrestrial event; now even that one seems to have been caused by more mundane planetary changes.

Maybe mass extinciton is a way for the planet to purge itself of an illness. Humans are on the list.

What if the planet purges this illness a little sooner than you expect, since you seem to view it as something far off in the future that we won't have to deal with.

[eyeball]

What if the planet purges this illness a little sooner than you expect, since you seem to view it as something far off in the future that we won't have to deal with.

Justice that timely would be almost Divine.

Oh oh, there's that nihilistic near horrifying facsination again. Its like being a passenger in a plane where the pilot and co-pilot have torn the controls off the dashboard in their efforts to gain control.

I'd sell my soul to live long enough to see how it all turns out.

[WIP]

IOW - we use fossil fuels because they are our best and most reliable source of energy. There are no practical alternatives at this time and none will likely appear anytime soon.

They won't, as long as the coal, oil and gas companies have their way! BTW, what detrimental environmental effects are there from building windmills? And you haven't included nuclear energy in the picture for some reason. The public's fear of nuclear waste may be re-evaluated after the costs of cleaning up the Tennessee disaster start sinking in! The 3rd and 4th generation nuclear reactors are less danger of meltdown than the first power plants and produce very little nuclear waste byproducts -- they could easily outperform coal-fired plants on a risk scale if it wasn't for the irrational fear of radiation that would lead many people to think they are safer living next to the coal sludge pond of a new coal-burning plant than they would be living next door to a nuclear power station!

This is not in dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

The entire planet was much warmer then as it was after each glaciation ended. The planet did not enter a period of out of control warming because of melting permafrost then and it will not now. These kinds of "tipping point" arguments are a joke and only appear because scientists who want funding need to "sex-up" their research by creating disaster scenarios. Tippings points and WMDs in Iraq have a lot in common.

Permafrost can't melt if it's still covered by sheets of ice:

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later.[4]

Even the graph provided only shows sporadic air temperature spikes that were higher than present temperatures, as of 2004. This would not have been enough energy to melt the glaciers as mentioned about the Laurentide ice sheet. If that glacier was there, that covers most of this country, then no land was exposed, so there couldn't be a permafrost melt! And what is the likelihood that the Arctic Ocean had melted, even for a short time, if North America was still covered by glaciers? The article doesn't mention anything about what was happening to the Arctic Ocean.

[Riverwind]

Why can't he do that if he's so certain its the truth?

Well, for starters claiming that AGW is a fraud and that we should do absolutely nothing is as wrong as saying the end of the world is coming in 20 years. After all the science does tell us with a high degree of certainty that CO2 is a GHG and it will cause some warming. The problem we have is we have no way to determine how much warming will occur nor can we determine what the consequences of the warming are likely to be.

That said, we can start by acknowledging that the scientific funding and review mechanisms that we currently have encourages exagerration and group-think. This means that extreme outcomes are much less probable than what the scientific community is claiming. This means we can afford to take a wait and see approach where we pay careful attention to the real data and be prepared to act if the real data conclusively shows that disaster is coming.

We also should invest in alternative energy sources because we will eventually need no matter what. However, we still need to use fossil fuels and any policy that attempts to outlaw existing fossil fuel sources is brain-dead.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Well, for starters claiming that AGW is a fraud and that we should do absolutely nothing is as wrong as saying the end of the world is coming in 20 years. After all the science does tell us with a high degree of certainty that CO2 is a GHG and it will cause some warming. The problem we have is we have no way to determine how much warming will occur nor can we determine what the consequences of the warming are likely to be.

That said, we can start by acknowledging that the scientific funding and review mechanisms that we currently have encourages exagerration and group-think. This means that extreme outcomes are much less probable than what the scientific community is claiming. This means we can afford to take a wait and see approach where we pay careful attention to the real data and be prepared to act if the real data conclusively shows that disaster is coming.

We also should invest in alternative energy sources because we will eventually need no matter what. However, we still need to use fossil fuels and any policy that attempts to outlaw existing fossil fuel sources is brain-dead.

Outlaw fossil fuels?!?

Excuse me but what was that you said about exageration and group think? Hmmm, where should I paraphrase things this time I wonder...

...oh, right...

This means that extreme outcomes are much less probable than what the economic community is claiming.

[Riverwind]

BTW, what detrimental environmental effects are there from building windmills?

Wind turbines don't grow from seeds. They need to be manufactured from resources extracted from the ground. The are mechanical devices that need to be replaced and maintained. They also need a huge electrical grid (larger than what we havenow) to support them which also requires resources to build and maintain. They also kill birds and bats. More importantly, wind is useless without some sort of baseload power. Once all of these factors are taken into account the environmental impact of wind turbines are easily as large as that of involved in the manufacture and maintenace of the personal automobile.

And you haven't included nuclear energy in the picture for some reason.

I have no issue with nuclear power but a lot of people do. More importantly, it is not possible to build nuclear plants fast enough to meet our energy needs.

Permafrost can't melt if it's still covered by sheets of ice:

It wasn't:

Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is about 155 square miles (400 km2) in size, and has been in place for approximately 3,000 years as part of a continuous ice shelf that encompasses the northern coast of Ellesmere Island until the beginning of the twentieth century.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Hunt_Ice_Shelf

Here is a map of the ice sheets from 8000 years ago: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/NA8kyr.gif

As you can see the majority of perma-frost was exposed at that time and would have melted in those temps.

[Riverwind]

Outlaw fossil fuels?!?

A tax which makes it uneconomic to operate a coal powered electrical plant is the same as outlawing them. Numerous influential US politicians are on the record stating that the construction of new coal plants would be prohibited.

So no. My claim is not exagarrated.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

A tax which makes it uneconomic to operate a coal powered electrical plant is the same as outlawing them. Numerous influential US politicians are on the record stating that the construction of new coal plants would be prohibited.

So no. My claim is not exagarrated.

You're kidding me right?

Boy, this is were the rubber of denial really hits the road. Numerous US politicians don't understand the first thing about climate science but they sure know a lot about the science of sophistry.

Taxing something is NOT the same as outlawing it. Prohibited is only one definition of the word outlaw, an exaggerated definition at that, especially in the economic context of taxing carbon the stated intention of which is to cause innovation and reduce demand the way taxing tobacco does.

Many influential economists have said that taxing previously outlawed substances would be a better way to manage them. According to your definition this sentance should read outlawing previously outlawed substances would be a better way to manage them. Am I right or correct or...just exaggerating?

Edited December 29, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

Taxing something is NOT the same as outlawing it.

I am responding the to rhetoric put forward by various activist groups who happen to have the support highly ranked officials in the US administration. Banning coal via punative taxes, regulation or outright prohibition is high on their list of demands (I don't have time to chase down the quotes for you). However, there is very wide range of views and some take the view that a moderate carbon tax would encourage change without preventing the use of fossil fuels. I was not refering to those views in my previous comments on taxation.

[eyeball]

You seem at least as phony as a three dollar bill Riverwind but maybe I'm just exaggerating things.

(I don't have time to chase down the quotes for you).

That's okay, I know you were probably just exaggerating.

[Riverwind]

That's okay, I know you were probably just exaggerating.

Enviromental activists:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/14/nation/na-coalwars14

Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic or legal means necessary.

They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.

Climate scientists:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03...ction=australia

NASA scientist urges PM to stop coal exports

He says the "continuing mining of coal, export of coal, and the construction of new coal-fired power plants" should be halted and a transition is needed to solve the global warming problem.

President Elect Obama:

The call then plays an excerpt from a January interview that Mr. Obama gave the San Francisco Chronicle in which he defends his proposal for a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of carbon dioxide by requiring power plants and others to buy the right to emit the harmful gas.

Listen to Obama's plans for the coal states.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," he said.

I wish I was exgaerrating. Unfortunately, I am not.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I don't understand your willful ignorance on this point.

We have heard this all before.

Why not try to convince the Tory party you so loyally support? Is Harper willfully ignorant?

[Riverwind]

We have heard this all before.

Actually, no. This is a recent incident that demonstrates that the hockey stick fiasco was not an isolated incident but evidence of widespread problem within the climate science field. It is also new evidence that the editors of peer reviewed journals are enablers who are not willing to hold misbehaving scienctists accountable. This system is broken. But it is clear that you are prefer to believe in the fantasy that scientists are these noble creatures who who *never* let ego or financial concerns interfere with their interpretation of data.

Why not try to convince the Tory party you so loyally support? Is Harper willfully ignorant?

Why is everything a partisan issue to you? No one else is talking about party politics in this thread. Why do you? Edited December 30, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Actually, no. This is a recent incident that demonstrates that the hockey stick fiasco was not an isolated incident but evidence of widespread problem within the fields. But it is clear that you are prefer to believe in the fantasy that scientists are these noble creatures who who *never* let ego or financial concerns interfere with their interpretation of data.

Don't recall ever saying that. I have said that I have not seen the deep division of scientists on this subject that you claim to point to. Nor have I seen enough to completely dismiss man-made causes to warming that you say should be evident to everyone.

Why is everything a partisan issue to you? No one else is talking about party politics in this thread. Why do you?

Because you are an apologist for Harper who obviously has the same information you do and has come to a different conclusion than you have. Why aren't you talking about politics when it is politics that you are complaining about? Why do you rake the Liberals over the coals and pull back from doing the same to the Tories? I think it is because you are a partisan Tory supporter who just can't bring yourself to do it. Your defence in the past is that Harper doesn't really mean it. Well, he has already done things that indicate he means it and you just shrug. I can't imagine you doing the same thing for the Liberals.

Your party politics is anti-Liberal. Time to put the heat on the person who makes the decisions on global warming in Canada: Stephen Harper. Why don't you do it? What are you doing about it? Why impotently complain here?

Edited December 30, 2008 by jdobbin

[WIP]

Wind turbines don't grow from seeds. They need to be manufactured from resources extracted from the ground.

So, everything else we make comes from metals and other natural resources, why the sudden concern here?

The are mechanical devices that need to be replaced and maintained. They also need a huge electrical grid (larger than what we havenow) to support them which also requires resources to build and maintain.

And once they are built, they are driven by a renewable energy resource that doesn't give off exhaust emissions or involve open pit mining or the dirty processing steps needed for recovering oil from tar sands or shale deposits.

They also kill birds and bats. More importantly, wind is useless without some sort of baseload power.

Oh please! You're not going to count the wildlife killed off by smokestacks or polluted ground waters, but all of a sudden are concerned about birds getting caught in the blades of a turbine.

I have no issue with nuclear power but a lot of people do. More importantly, it is not possible to build nuclear plants fast enough to meet our energy needs.

Which likely has more to do with the regulatory process that fast-tracks coal fired generating stations and delays the construction of nuclear plants. And the public fears of disasters like the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine, which didn't have any containment buildings or other backup systems that were standard in the West even when the first nuclear plants opened.

And if the headaches associated with nuclear wastes are still a roadblock to new construction, why not divert some of the money spent on fusion research (which will never become feasible without some still unknown breakthrough in containing the fusion reaction) towards experimental reactors like the Clean And Environmentally Safe Advanced Reactor (CAESAR) Project, which has already passed the prototype stage, and is being held up by a mere 2.5 million dollars needed to build an experimental reactor. The way money is being thrown around these days, it's a crime not to provide a few million and a couple of years study to test this project.

It wasn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Hunt_Ice_Shelf

Here is a map of the ice sheets from 8000 years ago: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/NA8kyr.gif

As you can see the majority of perma-frost was exposed at that time and would have melted in those temps.

Really! Take a good look at that map again. It is identified as a "preliminary" result of a collaborative effort by a number of researchers; but even if we assume it is 100% correct, it shows a much colder climate than we have today: the Canadian Shield area around Hudson's Bay is covered in ice, as is the interior of Alaska and British Columbia; tundra covers the rest of its present range except along the Rockys, where it extends down into the U.S. mainland; the mid and souther range taiga which covers what's left in Canada, except for Southern Ontario, is mostly what we have up North and all through the Prairies, where ice remains in the deeper layers of soil, making it impossible for melting snow and rain to drain off, and you end up with mosquito-infested bogs or muskeg.....not much fun to travel through. If it gets warm enough for all of these areas to completely thaw out, there is going to be a lot of carbon dioxide and methane released into the atmosphere as well.......and this would not have happened judging from your map........and it's still missing proof that the Arctic Ocean melted during that time!

Edited December 30, 2008 by WIP

[Riverwind]

I have said that I have not seen the deep division of scientists on this subject that you claim to point to.

So? My point is the people who are trying to tell us that the "science is settled" are not trustworthy and there is a lot of documented evidence which supports this claim.

Because you are an apologist for Harper who obviously has the same information you do and has come to a different conclusion than you have.

Harper has to run the country. I don't so I have the luxury of being less than diplomatic when I express my opinions. If I was in his position I would play a long while looking for ways to minimize the economic impact. This is the only sensible course of action given the current hysterical environment. Things will likely get better if the cold weather continues and after the Obama administration discovers that there is little appetite for real sacrifices to combat the problem inside the US or around the world.

[jdobbin]

So? My point is the people who are trying to tell us that the "science is settled" are not trustworthy and there is a lot of documented evidence which supports this claim.

Science is rarely settled. We go on the best information available and so far more scientists fall on the side of man-made influences on warming based on the data gathered.

Denialists try to raise doubt about science to further their own ends. We have seen time and time again when it comes to issues such as smoking. Even today some of the scientists that you feel support your view also support the view that there science on damage from smoking is untrustworthy.

Harper has to run the country. I don't so I have the luxury of being less than diplomatic when I express my opinions. If I was in his position I would play a long while looking for ways to minimize the economic impact. This is the only sensible course of action given the current hysterical environment. Things will likely get better if the cold weather continues and after the Obama administration discovers that there is little appetite for real sacrifices to combat the problem inside the US or around the world.

Which is why I call you an apologist.

[Riverwind]

And once they are built, they are driven by a renewable energy resource that doesn't give off exhaust emissions or involve open pit mining or the dirty processing steps needed for recovering oil from tar sands or shale deposits.

Only when the wind blows. Wind power is a joke and cannot provide more than 10% of the system. Thermal solar is better but is useless in northern latitudes.

I would be a lot less concerned about the impacts of anti-CO2 policies if there was evidence that people would accept nuclear. However, most activists reject the nuclear option too.

it shows a much colder climate than we have today:

From the wikipedia:

"Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites."

In other words, there is no question that temperatures were warmer than today. So why didn't the permefrost melt?

Trees take time to re-establish themselves so the distribution of flora tell us nothing about the temperatures.

it and it's still missing proof that the Arctic Ocean melted during that time!

All of the ice shelves off Ellemere Island were formed in the last 5000 years. That means they either neer existed before then or melted and then reformed. When you combine this data with the proxies that show that warmer than today temperatures then it means one of two things: either the arctic was ice free then or it is going to have to get a lot hotter before the arctic becomes ice free.

[Riverwind]

Science is rarely settled. We go on the best information available and so far more scientists fall on the side of man-made influences on warming based on the data gathered.

Sorry that is not what they are saying. The are insisting the science is settled and that there can be no further discussion. Grossly exgarrating the certainty of the science is irresponsible. In this debate it the skeptics who are correct to point this out.

Denialists try to raise doubt about science to further their own ends. We have seen time and time again when it comes to issues such as smoking. Even today some of the scientists that you feel support your view also support the view that there science on damage from smoking is untrustworthy.

Ah yes. The conspiracy theories. Skeptics are motivated by for their "own ends" but other scientists are paragons of virtue only interested in scientific knowledge. Ironically, the reality is likely the reverse. Most of the people supporting the consensus are motivated by their egos and a desire to advance their careers where the skeptics speak out because they honestly feel the "consensus" is wrong.

Which is why I call you an apologist.

There is nothing to apologize for. Edited December 30, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Sorry that is not what they are saying. The are insisting the science is settled and that there can be no further discussion. Grossly exgarrating the certainty of the science is irresponsible. In this debate it the skeptics who are correct to point this out.

Saying that science is never settled enough to act is grossly irresponsible. In this debate, it is the scientists who are correct to point this out.

Ah yes. The conspiracy theories. Skeptics are motivated by for their "own ends" but other scientists are paragons of virtue only interested in scientific knowledge. Ironically, the reality is likely the reverse. Most of the people supporting the consensus are motivated by their egos and a desire to advance their careers where the skeptics speak out because they honestly feel the "consensus" is wrong.

Honestly? Please. Now you are saying your scientists are the paragons of virtue.

There is nothing to apologize for.

Didn't expect you to. It is hyperpartisan Conservative support. You dare not criticize the Tories even if they do exactly what you disagree with.

[Riverwind]

Saying that science is never settled enough to act is grossly irresponsible.

Alarmists have taken the precautionary principal and twisted it beyond all recognition. They are demanding an expensive and radical transformation of society that will likely result in a reduced standard of living for most people. Given that context we need a lot more scientific certainty than we have or can reasonably hope to achieve.

To put it another way: buying a $1000 insurance policy for a $300,000 home is prudent. Buying a $600,000 insurance policy for a $300,000 home is dumb.

Honestly? Please. Now you are saying your scientists are the paragons of virtue.

No. I am just ridiculing your naivety and hypocrisy. Edited December 30, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Alarmists have taken the precautionary principal and twisted it beyond all recognition. They are demanding an expensive and radical transformation of society that will likely result in a reduced standard of living for most people. Given that context we need a lot more scientific certainty than we have or can reasonably hope to achieve.

Denialist have taken their conservative leanings and twisted it beyond all recognition. They are demanding no work be done and questioning any science research. They usually indicate that there is no scientific certainty and therefore no reason to do anything.

To put it another way: buying a $1000 insurance policy for a $300,000 home is prudent. Buying a $600,000 insurance policy for a $300,000 home is dumb.

I think you are being generous to your denialists. They don't want any insurance policy. They don't believe one is necessary at all.

No. I am just ridiculing your naivety and hypocrisy.

And I am ridiculing your impotent whining and hyperpartisan Conservative support that doesn't even seek to criticize your party for saying it believes that global warming is happening and is already spending hundreds of millions on it. The hypocrisy of that and the apologies you make for it are either naive or cynical.

The cry of leave party politics out of this is just laughable. It is laughable because the decisions made on what to do take place on the political front at the highest levels. You seem to cowed to take on your own party or make excuses for them.

I suspect this is all about party politics on your part. You can bash non-conservatives in your one note threads on global warming and shrug your should shoulders about cap and trade, ethanol and list of other policies your party has committed hundreds of millions to already and that is likely to cost more than the Liberal plan when full cap and trade is implemented.

Where is your moral courage to say no? Why so reticent?