Glaciers As Global Warming Drama, Part Of The Big Lie

The nonsense about man-caused global warming and climate change just keeps coming.  It is the grandest hoax of our age, and that is saying a lot.  What is the latest outrage to irk me?  Glaciers.  Plain old ice.

Everyone responds to dramatic effects.  The news media knows that.  Hollywood knows that.  We are a culture bred to respond to video or photographic images.  Man was first influenced by verbal story tellers, then accompanied by song, then came the written word, then the drawn or painted visual word, followed by photographs, then moving photographs, now video and everything digitized and available anywhere at the speed of light. 

This is why glaciers are used so often to depict "catastrophic" global warming, because they are visual, huge, dramatic, and awe-inspiring.  Imagine, people take cruises to places like Alaska, Patagonia, Argentina, and Antarctica, for what?  To see big ice cubes (glaciers) melt.  Then they attribute the melting to man's burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Apparently, many people are so awed by this melting ice they are willing to open their wallets and freely give money to those who promise stop the calamity of big melting ice cubes.  This melting and freezing of glacial ice has always been going on.  It is nothing new.  Al Gore did not invent it.  It is not a catastrophe because President Obama's teleprompter says so, or because John Kerry is instructed to say it is.  It all sounds insane, doesn't it.  Well, it is.

Why do they continue lying to us about global warming and climate change as being (or implied to be) man-caused in articles like the following? The only answer is we are being manipulated. What is the reason? If this effort is based on lies, it is wrong, and our money (taxes) are being taken unfairly and we ought to be outraged. Can it be much simpler than that? Are we so afraid to dissent and disagree that we march along like sheep to the slaughter? Have we as a people, as a nation, sunk so low, become so passive, so obedient? I hope not, even if recent election results seem to indicate otherwise.
Peter

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229752.600-ice-sheets-may-have-already-passed-point-of-no-return.html#.U6uKCjco6eQ

"THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.

The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?"

 

(Is the above statement from the linked article complete sensationalist nonsense, or what?  Of course it is, and it is typical of what our young people are being fed and considered science.  Think of what a steady diet of this poison does.  And we wonder why people vote the way they do?  Peter)

Obama Calls For Action On Global Warming: Is He Crazy?

Here it is a mere two weeks after the Election and Obama is already talking nonsense about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. He is proposing what is essentially an increase in taxes (we all know any increased cost of producing energy, i.e. carbon credits, or cap and trade) will be passed on to the consumer. This will not just harm those producing electricity from the burning of coal, it will cost everyone, substantially. He is then proposing to take that money, tax-payer's money, and use it to fund the development of "alternative" forms of energy.

It is clear that Obama has fallen for the myth of man-caused global warming, hook, line, and sinker. This does not bode well for the future of Obama's reign in office.
Peter

Obama seeks immediate action to curb emissions
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2008

(11-18) 17:46 PST LOS ANGELES -- In his first speech on global warming since winning the election, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday to set stringent limits on greenhouse gases, saying the need is too urgent for delay.
Many observers had expected Obama to avoid tackling such a complex, contentious issue early in his administration. But in videotaped comments to the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills on Tuesday, he called for immediate action.

"Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all," Obama said. "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious."

He repeated his campaign promise to create a system that limits carbon dioxide emissions and forces companies to pay for the right to emit the gas. Using the money collected from that system, Obama plans to invest $15 billion each year in alternative energy. That investment - in solar, wind and nuclear power, as well as advanced coal technology - will create jobs at a time of economic turmoil, he said.

"It will ... help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating 5 million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced," Obama said.
Many people listening to Obama's speech Tuesday had waited years to hear it.
Schwarzenegger 'very happy'

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger convened the Global Climate Summit along with the governors of Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin - states that have been developing their own global warming policies rather than waiting for federal action. Schwarzenegger clashed repeatedly with the Bush administration on climate policy and complained that the White House was dragging its feet on a looming crisis. He told the conference Tuesday that he welcomed a new approach from Washington and will work with Obama.

"Of course I am very, very happy," Schwarzenegger said. "This is so important for our country, because we have been the biggest polluters in the world, and it is about time that we as a country recognize that and that we work together with other nations in order to fight global warming."

Obama touted the idea of companies paying to emit greenhouse gases, a system known as "cap and trade," during the campaign. But many people had doubted he would make it an early priority as president.

Under such a system, the government would set an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions and let companies buy and sell the right to emit specific amounts. The limit would decline over time.

Such systems are complicated to create. They're also controversial. Critics say they amount to a tax on energy use that would hurt businesses and consumers at a time when the economy is floundering.

But one business group threw its support behind Obama on Tuesday.
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which includes San Francisco's Pacific Gas and Electric Co. as well as several environmental organizations, started calling for government action on global warming two years ago. The group wants a cap and trade system as soon as possible, even though many of its members - such as oil giants BP and ConocoPhillips - emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.

"We stand united behind President-elect Obama's statement earlier today," said James Rogers, chief executive officer of Duke Energy, one of America's largest electric utilities. "Delaying this further doesn't make sense. And using the economy as an excuse is wrong. ... We can solve our economic and environmental crises simultaneously."

Paying for emitting carbons
A cap and trade system forces companies to pay for emitting greenhouse gases, effectively putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, alternative energy technologies should become more cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

"At its core, it's very simple - we need a price on carbon," said David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy, another Climate Action Partnership member. "We own coal-fired power plants. That's what we do for a living. We've been developing low- or no-carbon technologies as we look to the future. ... But again, we need a price on carbon, because it's not cheap."

Obama's four-minute, videotaped speech largely repeated elements of his energy plan from the campaign trail, saying the nation must cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

He repeatedly linked the fight against global warming to reviving the economy, saying the investment in alternative energy would put Americans to work.

Nuclear power, 'clean coal'
Obama also made a point of backing technologies that many environmentalists despise - nuclear power and "clean coal," which involves trapping and storing underground the emissions from coal-burning power plants.

Obama told participants at the governors' climate conference that he would work with any country, state or business that wanted to fight climate change. Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Mexico, India, Indonesia and the United Kingdom all sent representatives to the two-day conference.

"I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who's willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House," he said. "Any company that's willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that is willing to join the cause of combatting climate change will have an ally in the United States of America."

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/MNBE146VPK.DTL

Carbon Tax Inevitable Say Experts

Here's what is coming, big tax increases. If lawmakers succeed in capping "carbon emissions", or directly taxing companies that produce carbon dioxide, there is little doubt these costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. How does a $100 Billion per year increase sound? Maybe the worst thing is it will all be for nothing, because reducing carbon dioxide emissions will do nothing to control global warming and climate change.
Peter


Carbon Tax Inevitable, Analysts Say
By Nathan BurchfielCNSNews.com Staff WriterJune 06, 2007(CNSNews.com) -

A tax-based approach to reducing carbon emissions "is going to happen," a panel of economists and tax analysts agreed Tuesday, differing only on whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system would be the best approach. "This is going to happen anyway so we might as well enjoy it," Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said during a discussion at the organization's Washington, D.C., headquarters. "And maybe something good will come of it."

Toder and three other panelists discussed the costs and benefits of the two approaches to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which some scientists believe contributes to global climate change. The panelists ruled out direct federal government regulation of emissions and tax credits for "doing good things," describing those as "inefficient" ways of addressing the issue.

A cap-and-trade system would place limits on how much CO2 industries may emit, and allow heavy emitters, such as power plants, to trade carbon "credits" with others that emit less. A carbon tax would simply apply a tax to carbon emissions, creating an incentive to reduce the emissions to avoid the tax. A carbon tax "gets the incentives right," said Rob Williams, an associate professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin. He suggested such a tax could raise $100 billion per year in revenue.

Cap-and-trade credits are also "worth a lot of money," argued Terry Dinan, an economist at the Congressional Budget Office. She pointed to the success of sulfur emissions caps in the 1990 Clean Air Act as evidence that the cap-and-trade approach could succeed in reducing CO2 emissions. A bill currently in the U.S. Senate would create a cap-and-trade system for electricity plants and set carbon emissions standards for automobiles, beginning in 2016.

Drafted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the measure is under consideration in the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Toder said it is likely that any proposal that ends up passing will include tax incentives and a major public relations push, because "any kind of new tax is likely to create a tremendous amount of resistance." "Given political realities, tax incentives will have to be part" of whatever bill is passed, Toder said. "You would really need to make the offsets very, very compelling to get people to agree to it. "He suggested a revenue-neutral approach that would apply tax cuts from other areas to make up for the increased revenue from a carbon tax or sales of emissions credits. "If you were really interested in doing it for environmental reasons," he said, "you would need to give away at least as much money as you raised in order to make it sell."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), has pledged to push legislation that addresses carbon emissions. The proposal, however, has been in her committee since January without action. In a reversal from his previous skeptical stance on global warming, President Bush last week announced a new approach. "Climate change must be addressed in a way that enhances energy security and promotes economic growth," the White House said in a statement Thursday.

Global Meltdown, By Andrew Revkin

This article published at AARP's Website summarizes the conventional wisdom involved in the current debate over "carbon emissions", global warming, climate change, energy supplies, alternative energy sources, and world politics. He offers no new insight, but this is worth reading as a kind of primer on the subject.
Peter

From: http://www.aarpmagazine.org/lifestyle/global_meltdown.html


Global Meltdown
By Andrew Revkin, July & August 2007
It’s becoming a legacy issue for older Americans: what type of planet are we leaving our children? One of the nation’s top reporters on the environment reveals the latest science behind climate change

KANGERLUSSUAQ, GREENLAND
I’m staring up at the crumbling edge of the frozen white cap cloaking most of this vast Arctic island. The ice is thousands of years old, yet melting relentlessly in the bright May sunshine, sending a torrent of gray water to the sea. With me is Joe McConnell, a snow scientist who just spent three weeks drilling samples from the ice sheet, which extends over an area four times the size of California and is almost two miles high at its peak.

McConnell, 49, an expert on the world’s frozen places, is from—of all places—the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada. That incongruity isn’t so jarring when he explains that many of the world’s driest communities, from the Andes to the American Southwest, are home to the billion-plus people who get much of their water from mountain snow and glaciers.
The ice-gouged, U-shaped valleys around us, now covered with lichens and shrubs, show that the earth’s climate has changed naturally for billions of years, ever since there’s been an atmosphere. Great warmings and coolings have sent ocean levels rising and falling as enormous amounts of water were locked in glaciers or released like the flows we see here in Greenland.
But the current warming trend is happening much faster than previous hot spells, says McConnell, and none of the forces that usually affect climate—such as variations in the sun’s strength—are in sync with this recent change. Should these patterns continue, he believes, the consequences are clear. “If Greenland melted, it’d raise sea levels by twenty feet,” he explains. “There goes most of the Mississippi embayment. There go the islands in the South Pacific. Bangladesh is obliterated. Manhattan would have to put up dikes.” A similar amount of ice is vulnerable in western Antarctica, another focus of McConnell’s work. While this would most likely be a slow-motion sea change taking many centuries, gases being pumped into the atmosphere by cars, planes, factories, and power plants could raise the odds of such a shift.
“There’s definitely a lot of melting going on,” McConnell says, flinching as a crack echoes from the warming white ice cliff above and a towering slab tilts.
Welcome to life on the frontlines of climate change.

For nearly 20 years I’ve been reporting on the extraordinary idea that humans, mainly by burning billions of tons of fossil fuels, are nudging the planet’s thermostat by adding to the atmosphere’s see-through blanket of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” which traps some of the sun’s energy. This quest has taken me from the shrinking sea ice at the North Pole to the burning forests of the Amazon, from the fraught political battlegrounds of Washington to the tenuous sands of the Maldives, a string of islets in the Indian Ocean where a sea level rise of a couple of feet—a real prospect in a warming century—could render the country uninhabitable. In all my time covering this issue, I’ve never seen the debate as heated as it is now, with talk show hosts, politicians, moviemakers, and novelists alternately claiming human-caused warming is a planetary emergency or a hoax.

But beneath the volleys of sound bites are real people with real concerns. When I give talks on global warming, quite a few of my over-50 peers in the audience remark that this is, at its heart, an issue of legacy. It is our children’s climate, and our grandchildren’s, that is being shaped by the building greenhouse effect. One disturbing part of that legacy is this: while half the gas billowing from smokestacks and tailpipes is typically absorbed by the oceans or plants each year, the rest remains stashed in the air for a century or longer, building like unpaid credit card debt.

NEW YORK CITY
In the intellectual equivalent of a pro-wrestling “smackdown,” two teams of combatants enter a plush, packed auditorium on the Upper East Side for a debate titled “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis,” staged by a group called Intelligence Squared U.S.
The climate-change debunkers include Richard S. Lindzen, 67, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who claims that human-caused warming is inconsequential, and Michael Crichton, 64, the novelist and moviemaker. Crichton stirred the climate debate with a 2004 novel, State of Fear, in which the bad guys were radical environmentalists trying to scare the world about global warming in order to line their pockets. Opposed are three climate scientists: one from NASA, one from a leading university, and one from a private group called the Union of Concerned Scientists. Most of the night focuses on their differences, mainly concerning the value of quick, aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Richard C.J. Somerville, 66, a veteran University of California, San Diego, climatologist, attacks the “not a crisis” position. “[A crisis] does not mean catastrophe or alarmism,” he says. “It means a crucial or decisive moment, a turning point, a state of affairs in which a decisive change for better or worse is imminent. Our task tonight is to persuade you that global warming is indeed a crisis in exactly that sense. The science warns us that continuing to fuel the world using present technology will bring dangerous and possibly surprising climate changes by the end of this century, if not sooner.”

But Crichton insists that pressing real-time problems trump an iffy, long-term one. “Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty,” he tells the crowd. “A third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now.”

What’s largely lost in the sparring—Crichton’s team prevails in an audience vote—is that the debate has not been about whether humans are contributing to rising temperatures. Crichton and Lindzen, both of whom consider former vice president Al Gore and his allies alarmists, readily agree that human-generated greenhouse gases warm the earth. Indeed, the list of people accepting the need to cut these gases includes former foes of environmentalists. One convert is evangelist Pat Robertson, who said on his 700 Club TV program last year that “it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.… We really need to do something on fossil fuels.” Another conservative taking warming seriously is former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. “The evidence is sufficient,” he said in April, “that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere.”

What’s driving the change in attitudes is a steadily growing body of scientific evidence on human activities and warming. A report released earlier this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—made up of hundreds of the world’s leading climate experts—said with 90 percent certainty that most of the warming since 1950 has been driven by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The report concluded with “high confidence” that human-caused climate change was already affecting regional conditions from the poles to the Tropics, and that hundreds of millions of people could be harmed by coastal flooding, dwindling water supplies, and shifting weather patterns within a few decades. The changes could also drive many species toward extinction, particularly those with rapidly shrinking habitats, such as polar bears. Warming in this century, by many estimates, could be between three and eight times the warming in the 20th century, when the planet’s average temperature rose just over one degree Fahrenheit in all. The United States was among 113 countries that endorsed the report.
The new report also predicts a mix of consequences, not all bad. More rainfall and longer growing seasons will likely benefit higher latitudes for decades, while less rainfall and harsher droughts are likely in some of the world’s poorest places—most notably, Africa. An open-water Arctic Ocean in summers, while posing a threat to polar bears, could create new intercontinental shipping lanes thousands of miles shorter than existing ones.

What the debate comes down to is not whether changes are coming but when they’ll occur—and how severe they’ll be. There is serious scientific disagreement about such vital questions as how fast and far temperatures, seas, and storm strength could rise. Warmer waters, for example, could lead to more Katrina-strength hurricanes. Yet new studies find that hurricanes might be torn apart by wind conditions associated with, yes, rising temperatures. This uncertainty is not humanity’s friend, experts say, especially as the global population crests in coming decades, putting ever more people at risk of flooding, famine, and other climate-driven threats.
“We’re altering the environment far faster than we can possibly predict the consequences,” says Stephen H. Schneider, 62, a Stanford University climatologist who has been working on the puzzle of humans and climate for more than half his life.

Schneider has long believed that responding to the greenhouse challenge is as much about hedging against uncertain risks as it is about dealing with what is clearly known. And the risks, as he sees it, are clear: there is a real chance things could be much worse than the midrange projections of a few degrees of warming in this century—and any thought that more science will magically clarify what lies ahead is probably wishful thinking.
When he lectures about global warming these days, Schneider often asks listeners about a more familiar risk. “How many of you have had a serious fire in your home?” he begins. In a crowd of 300 or so, usually three or four hands rise.
His next question: “How many of you buy fire insurance?”
Hundreds of hands go up.
For Schneider that pattern shows how well people deal with uncertain but potentially calamitous risks in their daily lives. The trick lies in transferring that same behavior to dealing with a risk facing our common home—the planet itself.

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
I’m standing in a cramped lab at the California Institute of Technology, squinting at a blinding light. It’s visible through a small glass port in the side of a metal furnace where scientists are cooking up a new kind of device for turning sunlight into electricity. Inside, atoms of metals are being deposited onto minute rods in ways that could someday boost the efficiency of solar panels.
Solar power is widely seen as the sole alternative energy source that is abundant enough—and someday could be cheap enough—to eventually supplant fossil fuels. Windmills, while effective in certain conditions, face problems at large scale. In Texas, for example, the hottest days—which prompt the biggest surge in power use—tend to be the least windy. Nuclear power, while producing few emissions, has its own problem of scale. Princeton experts recently estimated that the world would need nearly 900 new nuclear power plants in the next 45 years just to reduce the expected carbon dioxide release by 10 percent in that time.

And so research sites like this one in Pasadena are the critical, yet largely overlooked, battlefronts in the global warming war. In the mist-draped hills of New Haven, West Virginia, engineers and scientists have drilled more than 9,000 feet beneath one of the country’s giant coal-fired power plants to see whether layers of rock can provide a repository for vast amounts of CO2 released as the coal burns. In the “biology building” at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory outside Denver, special strains of algae slosh like pea soup in racks of beakers under bright lights. In certain conditions these algae can generate bubbles of hydrogen, a tantalizing substitute for fossil fuels if it can be produced cheaply and cleanly. So far, the gas has been produced in teacup amounts.

The gulf between such embryonic efforts and what’s needed to avoid a buildup of greenhouse gases remains wide, despite statements by politicians of both parties about solving U.S. energy and climate problems. Funding for such research peaked in the United States and abroad during the oil shocks of the 1970s, then dwindled. It has never grown since—only Japan has sustained investment in such research. Scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory were heartened when $34 million of new money was included in their latest science budget last year. But Arthur J. Nozik, 71, a chemical physicist there, notes that this is roughly the cost of one F-18 jetfighter. In the end, only $8 million was authorized by Congress in 2007.

The challenge of shifting to new energy options is made vastly more difficult because the world’s existing energy system—85 percent based on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels—is so integrated into modern life. “We already have electricity coming out of everybody’s wall socket,” says Nathan S. Lewis, 51, a chemistry professor who codirects the Powering the Planet project at Caltech. “This is not a new function we’re seeking. It’s a substitution. It’s not like NASA sending a man to the moon. It’s like finding a new way to send a man to the moon when Southwest Airlines is already flying there every hour handing out peanuts.”

Numerous experts say the only way to propel such a change is with taxes on fuels that produce the most greenhouse gases, or new emission-reduction treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States did not ratify), or bills—like many being discussed on Capitol Hill—that require emissions reductions. But there are major political impediments, both globally and domestically. And do Americans have the stomach for higher taxes and heating bills? Perhaps, says Peter Schwartz, 61, who analyzes risks for corporations and the government, if we see global warming as a security threat—one that could create calamities ranging from large-scale migrations to conflicts over food and water.

With or without new laws or taxes, the need for technological advances is vital, says Martin I. Hoffert, 69, a physics professor at New York University. Hoffert has testified repeatedly before Congress about the lack of investment in energy research—efforts that could help avoid oil wars, lower energy costs, and help poorer countries advance without overheating the planet. “Technology evolution is like biological evolution,” he says. “Most mutations, like most innovative technologies, don’t survive. But without mutations, evolution stops. It only takes one transistor to change the world.” And it won’t necessarily cost a fortune: John Holdren, 63, an energy and climate expert at Harvard, says that a rise in the federal gas tax of 2.5 cents a gallon would triple the federal energy-research budget.

Meanwhile, the demand for energy worldwide is increasing, and not only in such countries as India and China. Two billion people still cook meals on firewood or dried dung, and more than 1.5 million of those—mainly women and children—die young from breathing clouds of indoor smoke. In a world heading toward 9 billion or more people by 2042 who either are born into—or dream of—our plugged-in, air-conditioned, frequent-flier lifestyle, revolutionary new energy sources are needed.

It may be that what we face is less a climate crisis than an energy challenge. Many experts believe the key to limiting climate risks and solving a host of momentous problems—including the end of abundant oil—is to begin an ambitious quest for new ways to conserve, harvest, and store energy without creating pollution.

Harnessing the power of the sun remains the Holy Grail of most energy experts. But research on solar technologies remains tiny in scale, though the potential has been clear for decades. Consider this incredibly prescient quote: “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
The year? 1931. The speaker? Thomas Edison.

“The biggest challenge is how to get people to wake up and realize this is a one-shot deal,” says Caltech’s solar guru, Lewis. “If we fail, we are witting participants in the biggest experiment that humans have ever done: moving CO2 levels to more than twice their value in the past 670,000 years and hoping it turns out okay for generations to come.”
Andrew Revkin is a reporter with The New York Times and the author of The North Pole Was Here: Puzzles and Perils at the Top of the World (Houghton Mifflin, 2006), the first book on global climate change written for both children and adults. His stories on global warming can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
What are you doing to help?
Are you leading a climate-friendly life? Tell us how, and share your thoughts about global warming on this article's message board.
Online Extra: Check out our global warming photo gallery narrated by Andrew Revkin.

The Cap-And-Trade Scam

If the global warming issue was only a scientific debate it could easily be dismissed as an intellectual mind game between scientists and computer modelers. It would be comparable to the argument between those who "believe" in evolution, versus those who "believe" in a literal interpretation of the Bible. There would be no end to it and it would not have to be taken seriously.

However, global warming became an emotional, political issue, and now it seems as divisive as the abortion issue, or gun-control, or foreign policy in the Middle East. In other words, it has become a huge issue, one involving enormous power, control, and billions upon billions of dollars. It is past time that rational people take serious notice about what is really going on behind the nightly news and the weather report.

The following article, of which I've posted the majority of, summarizes the idiotic idea of selling or trading carbon caps. It will cost billions and not improve the climate or limit real pollution in any way. In other words, it is a huge SCAM. Yet incomprehensibly, people are falling for it.
Read the original article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200705/COM20070514c.html
Peter



The Great Cap-And-Trade Scam
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center May 14,
Of all the crazed global warming proposals being put forth by the new masters of Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairperson of the Public Works Committee, by far the worst would be a mandated cap-and-trade program that would supposedly offset carbon dioxide emissions.

This program is horrid on several counts. First, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence -- other than disputed and dubious computer models -- to suggest that any significant global warming is occurring. The warming and cooling of the Earth is an entirely natural phenomenon.

Second, carbon dioxide (CO2) plays only a minor role as a so-called greenhouse gas. The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor produced by the world's oceans. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and, even if a mild warming were to occur, the only result would be an extended period to grow more crops and to enhance the growth of the world's forests that generate the oxygen on which all humans depend for life.

Third, the notion that man-made CO2 emissions -- the result of industrial activity, the use of cars and trucks for transportation, and a host of other things humans do -- is a major contributor to "climate change" is almost too silly to believe. Recently, the European Union identified cow and sheep burping as an even greater threat than human activity, but ruminants have been doing this long before human civilization began.

To get an idea how bogus cap-and-trade emissions credits are, one need only look to see who is behind this spurious campaign. At or near the top of that list is the United Nations for whom global warming has become the Holy Grail. By positioning themselves to save the Earth, the U.N. sets itself up to control all aspects of life upon it. Supporting the U.N. program are the endless non-governmental organizations that benefit from keeping people fearful the Earth will come to an end without their programs to save it.

The adage, however, is "follow the money" and here's where we find the greatest supporters of cap-and-trade emissions credits. Huge financial firms such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are betting they can make billions through government mandated programs in which vast amounts of money move back and forth through "climate exchanges" where companies trade their alleged emissions reduction activities for credits, i.e., real cash.

The absolute worst part of these cap-and-trade emissions programs is the way they will affect the American consumer. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered a devastating indictment of the proposal.

In brief, the CBO concluded that the CO2 cap-and-trade scheme would increase home energy costs and the price of gas, unfairly punishing the poor while transferring wealth to the rich who have investments in these industries.

Not one of the nations that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol to limit their CO2 emissions has ever met the standards to which they agreed and none ever will. The cap-and-trade scheme is just another version of these meaningless limits, but one that is designed to enrich those who engage in the smoke-and-mirrors trade in such credits.

If a Democrat-controlled Congress permits this to occur, the global warming scam will have been brought to its full culmination and purpose, the enrichment of those who have been perpetrating it and those who seek to benefit from it.

Democrats Social Engineering: Our Worst Nightmare Coming True

If people think global warming and climate change is a danger, wait until (and if) new legislation intending to control climate change begins to take effect. First of all, be aware that once again, this is about controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Sound, clear, common-sensical scientific studies show that CO2 is not the driving force behind global warming and climate change. Only some computer models, fabricated by scientists with an agenda, based on theory, and manipulated by politicians, suggest CO2 is a pollutant.

Yet is spite of such flimsy evidence, our genius politicians are trying to pass laws that are going to cost us billions of wasted dollars. Somehow, someway, people are going to figure out we're being shafted. Here are some excerpts from the article and a link to it.
Peter


"Two of the frontrunners for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination this week agreed to co-sponsor legislation aimed at curbing global warming by putting caps on carbon emissions. Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, announced Tuesday that Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are co-sponsoring the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act.

Clinton and Obama lead the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination, based on recent polls. Other current senators seeking the nomination, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, also support the bill.

The bill crafted by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders would set carbon emission standards for electricity plants, establish a carbon credit trading program, and set carbon emission standards for automobiles beginning in 2016.

It also expresses the "sense of the Senate that federal funds for clean, low-carbon energy research, development, and deployment should be increased by at least 100 percent each year" for 10 years.

to read the entire article, go here: http://www.cnsnews.com:80/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070510c.html

A Glacial Pace On Warming- The Pressure is Building

This is an editorial from the NY Times. Various factions are stepping up the pressure on the Bush Administration and the EPA to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I say test the concept in California first. If people don't mind paying ever more for fuel and electricity, then go for it. My guess is people will not be happy. They will be paying more and not seeing any positive effects.
This is going to be an interesting battle of wills and it will not end any time soon. Let your voices be heard.
Peter

Editorial
A Glacial Pace on Warming
('The walls continue to close in on the Bush administration, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public.');

Published: April 28, 2007
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling that the federal government could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases, pressure for decisive action continues to build.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions.

A New York Times/CBS News Poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans now want immediate steps to deal with global warming. And a leaked draft of the next report from the world’s leading scientists says that the window for action is shrinking — that what governments do over the next 20 to 30 years will determine whether the world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Even so, Washington continues to move as slowly as a melting glacier. This week, Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, told a Senate committee that he was still mulling the ramifications of the court’s decision, and he would not say when or even whether he would regulate carbon dioxide. He promised to solicit public comments on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request but, again, would not say when or whether he would grant that request. Under the law, California can set its own emissions standards — which other states can then adopt — but it needs a federal waiver before putting them into effect.

“I don’t hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairwoman, told Mr. Johnson. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, was less charitable. “You astonish me,” he said, a criticism clearly intended for the entire administration.
Nobody is asking Mr. Johnson to design a comprehensive national program for regulating greenhouse gases, an enormous undertaking that is plainly Congress’s responsibility. Ms. Boxer and others are simply asking the administrator to exercise the authority the court gave him.
That would mean promptly approving California’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. That proposal is the centerpiece of a broader state effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 25 percent by 2020.

California requested a waiver in 2005, but the E.P.A. — hiding behind the now-demolished claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — has been sitting on it. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and will put them into effect as soon as California gets the green light.

Mr. Johnson’s stalling is a symptom of a larger problem, the administration’s reluctance to take seriously the science of global warming, which in turn explains its reluctance to take meaningful action. Yet the walls continue to close in, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public. If President Bush will not lead, Congress must.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Unveils Her Agenda

Here we have it straight from the horse's mouth, I mean House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. All of us scientific skeptics who doubt the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming might just as well give in, shut up, and pay up; because Nancy Pelosi says so.

She uses all the proper emotional catch phrases, "our beautiful planet", "carbon footprint", "the science of global warming", "sustainable harvest", and "future generations". She even brings God into play, in a smart move to get religious people to join the ranks of the true believer environmentalists. Am I the only one trying to stifle my gag reflex while reading this? The next thing you know Sheryl Crowe will be telling Congress about her ideas for saving the environment.

There are so many absurdities in this kind of logic I barely know where to begin. First, there is absolutely no scientific "consensus" that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. To state that the debate is over is simply a big LIE. Ignorance can sometimes be excused, but lying cannot.

Have any of these saviors of our "beautiful planet" considered the ramifications of not burning coal to generate electricity? We can reduce demand a little bit, maybe, even without Al Gore cutting his usage, but what are we going to use to generate all the electricity we can not do without? Burn more natural gas? Where is that going to come from? There's not enough, and oh, I forgot, that releases CO2 also. Maybe hydro-electric power......how long does it take to build a few hundred dams, and where are they going to be? Solar power, and wind power? Where, at what cost, and how much can they reasonable contribute. Not near enough. Then there is nuclear energy. Some say it takes TEN YEARS to build one plant. How long can we hold our breaths?

Oh, of course we must reduce our "dependence on foreign oil". I've been hearing that for 40 years, and all that happens is that we become more and more dependent. It is like saying we "must" improve education, and provide health care for all, and reduce crime. Yes, yes......of course Ms. Pelosi, we agree with you. This is just more political hot air. All it is going to mean is a higher cost of electricity, fuel, food, and nearly every other commodity you can think of. We're still going to need foreign oil, but we're not going to have the money to pay for it. That's the real global danger in what these people are proposing. Any comments? Let's hear it folks.
Peter



Democrats Declare July 4 'Energy Independence Day'

By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor April 26, 2007(CNSNews.com) -

"Global warming is "one of humanity's greatest challenges," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Wednesday. She said House Democrats are "working diligently" on legislation to address global warming challenges, and they expect to unveil their proposals by July 4, which she called "Energy Independence Day."

Speaking at a League of Conservation Voters' dinner in Washington Wednesday evening, Pelosi said future generations "must be first and foremost in our minds as we consider the conclusions of the scientific community: the planet is warming, human activity is responsible, and the effects are already evident around us."

She said the House will lead by example: "It is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," she said, applauding Sen. Barbara Boxer for getting key offices to switch to energy efficient lighting and introducing legislation that will promote energy efficiency in federal buildings."Just last week, I was proud to join other House leaders in announcing a 'Green the Capitol Initiative,' which will result in us operating the House in a carbon neutral manner at the earliest possible date, but certainly by the end of the 110th Congress," Pelosi said."We will adopt innovative solutions, such as purchasing 100 percent renewable electric power, ensuring wood for our furniture is sustainably harvested, and conducting a comprehensive review of our recycling initiative," Pelosi said.

She said Democrats want to convert the Capitol Power Plant to a combined heat and power system and improve the House office building ventilation system. She did not give a cost estimate."It is so exciting to stand before you as Speaker of the House and know that because of all our hard work together, we have elected a Congress that takes real action on behalf of our beautiful planet," Pelosi said. "The days of rejecting the science of global warming are over, as are the days of standing idly by."

Pelosi concluded with a reference to the Old Testament: "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us."

Some critics have accused liberal Democrats of putting global warming on a par with religion, just as Pelosi did on Wednesday. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs a new House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said last week that climate change is a national security issue.

At the inaugural hearing of the panel he chairs, Markey urged forceful action to "curb our dangerous dependence on imported oil and reduce our emissions of global warming pollution." But Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the select committee, has urged a "common-sense" approach to "big questions" about mankind's contribution to recent climate fluctuations."I believe we should continue to foster a healthy economic climate, and at the same time, make responsible decisions and seek innovations to lessen our impact on the global climate," Sensenbrenner said in news release last month."

'Let's Be Responsible' may not grab headlines like 'The Sky is Falling,' but it has the virtue of being correct. It also recognizes that there are two climates this panel, and Congress, have to be concerned with. One is environmental, and the other is economic."

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading skeptic of the nation that human activity is impacting the climate, has called global warming the most "media-hyped environmental issue of all time."Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.