I don't agree with everything said in the following article. I think that in general we should use as little energy as possible, and drive automobiles that are as fuel efficient as we can safely make them. The world is going to find oil and gas shrinking in supply and increasing in price. It makes sense to conserve, if only because oil and gas are, for the most part, finite resources.
However, I don't think there is a global climate crises because of the burning of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore I do not believe in the necessity of rigid, severe and costly control over carbon dioxide emissions.
Peter
Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin
By Doron Levin
July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.
Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.
Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard.
Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''
The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''
His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones.
Focused on Cars
The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing the earth's temperature to rise. But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.
``Automobiles always seem to be the focus, even though they only consume 15 percent or 20 percent of energy,'' said Csaba Csere, editor of Car & Driver magazine. If politicians really cared about the atmosphere they might concentrate first on power plants or factories, he said.
The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.
Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.
Planet in Peril?
Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal. Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?
The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return.
But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading climatologist, says that even if nothing is done to limit CO2, the world will heat up by 1 degree Celsius, or a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, in the next 50 to 100 years.
Move Inland
We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be more practical than trying to change the weather?
The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said.
A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries.
One Little Bite
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen.
Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners.
Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, water purification and transportation. What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards?
I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth.
(Doron Levin is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Showing posts with label emissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emissions. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
If Gore and Company Are Wrong About Global Warming, So What?
Here is an intelligent discussion about the real cost of trying to control global warming. Politicians have skipped over the scientific debate over global warming, which is far from being settled. The United Nation's IPCC report says says there is a "consensus among scientists", about the causes of global warming. I've provided ample evidence (here on this blog) from the most prominent climate scientists in the world to prove the IPCC report is at best wrong, and a worst an outright lie.
So here we have it, politicians are making decisions costing billions upon billions of dollars, based on inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical science based on computer modeling. Even though our best scientists can show there is little if any evidence that man-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Politicians don't care about the science. Why is everyone jumping on this bandwagon, when it's basic premise is wrong? Why.......because there is big, big money to be made. Money equals power, power equals control. I think it is as simple as that.
Peter
Here is the discussion between two thoughtful and well-informed people. It is from: http://www.townhall.com/
If They're Wrong About Gore-bal Warming, So What?
Dear Larry,
I'm a Democrat, and I enjoy your work. And I get veryfrustrated by those on the left who whine and are thin on the facts. This brings me to my reason for this letter: Global warming. The global warming debate is unique to humanity. If those who advocate "wait and convince more scientists"are wrong, following their advice may affect hundreds of millions of people, with possibly many killed by famine and flooding. On the other hand, if the people who advocate doing something now are wrong, the worst is mostly economic. That's a price I'm more than willing to pay to hedge my bets to protect the millions of lives at risk, as well as the ecosystems and animal species facing extinction. Following the advice of the vast majority of the world's atmospheric scientists sounds like a bet all humans should take. -- Mr. Ph.D.
Dear Mr. Ph.D.,
Progress! At least you do not say, as does Al Gore, that the debate about global warming in the scientific community "is over." Nor do you assert, as does CBS's Katie Couric, that "all the experts agree." The debate is not over, nor do all experts agree. You suggest that if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks. No, the worst case results in lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous and thus less capable of adapting to whatever damage might occur as a result of global warming.
The Kyoto Accords cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and figure to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. More will starve, with countries becoming less financially capable of dealing with diseases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. Funds directed toward combating global warming mean less money for immediate crises like those mentioned. This can result in greater political instability and tyranny, with more failed states receptive to the Islamo-fascist lie that rich nations become so "at the expense of poor ones."
Furthermore, many scientists and economists see a small-benefit to high-cost ratio, again therefore diverting money otherwise spent on improved technologies that could wean us away from environmentally polluting energy sources, some of which come from hostile, politically unstable nations. This means less money for R&D on wind, solar, nuclear and other non-fossil fuel alternatives. Life involves trade-offs. You underestimate the cost side while overestimating the benefit side.
"Environmentalists" like Rachel Carson, author of"Silent Spring," helped to create the hysteria that eliminated DDT. The result? The return of malaria and needless deaths. Kyoto already fails to meet its objectives in European countries that ratified the accords. Non-signatories like India and China, on the other hand, will soon become the biggest CO2 emission polluters.
Neither nation has or will likely sign on to Kyoto. Thus any benefits -- and again many scientists expect only negligible, if any, post-Kyoto benefits -- will be offset by polluting nations like India and China. Why does government need to mandate our way "out of this"? The Toyota Prius caught the public's fancy less because of government inducements and government R&D, and more because the company provided a product that consumers wanted. Understand this: the more prosperous a nation, the more its citizens can afford to demand"clean" means of production. Poor nations face bigger concerns -- like feeding their population, and providing housing and other basic services. Right now, neither India nor China can afford the luxury of"green" policies before things like food, housing and clothing.
The environment, like people, adapts. Entrepreneurs, right now, pour billions into "alternative"technologies as the costs of fossil fuels -- both financial and political -- go up, while the price of"clean" fuels go down. These things take time. Even some United Nations IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists say it's too late to reverse global warming. If so, oh well. Still others expect the "damage" to materialize centuries down the road, giving us plenty of time to change or adapt. Why does speculating about things like global warming replace direct and immediate threats? Iran, for example, seeks a bomb. If they use it -- and they threaten to -- imagine the environmental damage to the planet, to say nothing about the genocide-like loss of human life. But where is the urgency? Soon baby boomers will join the ranks of those on Social Security and Medicare, thus requiring younger workers to substantially increase their payroll taxes in order to allow boomers the same benefits enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. Where's the urgency? Policy-makers face immediate, predictable and foreseeable -- and especially in the case of Iran --serious around-the-corner issues. Yet we divert time,money and energy fretting about hypothetical"calamities" of global warming rather than dealing with real world/real time threats. You've gambled on global warming. I just hope we're alive to place a bet. -- Larry
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=if_theyre_wrong_about_gore-bal_warming,_so_what&ns=LarryElder&dt=03/15/2007&page=full&comments=true
So here we have it, politicians are making decisions costing billions upon billions of dollars, based on inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical science based on computer modeling. Even though our best scientists can show there is little if any evidence that man-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Politicians don't care about the science. Why is everyone jumping on this bandwagon, when it's basic premise is wrong? Why.......because there is big, big money to be made. Money equals power, power equals control. I think it is as simple as that.
Peter
Here is the discussion between two thoughtful and well-informed people. It is from: http://www.townhall.com/
If They're Wrong About Gore-bal Warming, So What?
Dear Larry,
I'm a Democrat, and I enjoy your work. And I get veryfrustrated by those on the left who whine and are thin on the facts. This brings me to my reason for this letter: Global warming. The global warming debate is unique to humanity. If those who advocate "wait and convince more scientists"are wrong, following their advice may affect hundreds of millions of people, with possibly many killed by famine and flooding. On the other hand, if the people who advocate doing something now are wrong, the worst is mostly economic. That's a price I'm more than willing to pay to hedge my bets to protect the millions of lives at risk, as well as the ecosystems and animal species facing extinction. Following the advice of the vast majority of the world's atmospheric scientists sounds like a bet all humans should take. -- Mr. Ph.D.
Dear Mr. Ph.D.,
Progress! At least you do not say, as does Al Gore, that the debate about global warming in the scientific community "is over." Nor do you assert, as does CBS's Katie Couric, that "all the experts agree." The debate is not over, nor do all experts agree. You suggest that if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks. No, the worst case results in lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous and thus less capable of adapting to whatever damage might occur as a result of global warming.
The Kyoto Accords cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and figure to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. More will starve, with countries becoming less financially capable of dealing with diseases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. Funds directed toward combating global warming mean less money for immediate crises like those mentioned. This can result in greater political instability and tyranny, with more failed states receptive to the Islamo-fascist lie that rich nations become so "at the expense of poor ones."
Furthermore, many scientists and economists see a small-benefit to high-cost ratio, again therefore diverting money otherwise spent on improved technologies that could wean us away from environmentally polluting energy sources, some of which come from hostile, politically unstable nations. This means less money for R&D on wind, solar, nuclear and other non-fossil fuel alternatives. Life involves trade-offs. You underestimate the cost side while overestimating the benefit side.
"Environmentalists" like Rachel Carson, author of"Silent Spring," helped to create the hysteria that eliminated DDT. The result? The return of malaria and needless deaths. Kyoto already fails to meet its objectives in European countries that ratified the accords. Non-signatories like India and China, on the other hand, will soon become the biggest CO2 emission polluters.
Neither nation has or will likely sign on to Kyoto. Thus any benefits -- and again many scientists expect only negligible, if any, post-Kyoto benefits -- will be offset by polluting nations like India and China. Why does government need to mandate our way "out of this"? The Toyota Prius caught the public's fancy less because of government inducements and government R&D, and more because the company provided a product that consumers wanted. Understand this: the more prosperous a nation, the more its citizens can afford to demand"clean" means of production. Poor nations face bigger concerns -- like feeding their population, and providing housing and other basic services. Right now, neither India nor China can afford the luxury of"green" policies before things like food, housing and clothing.
The environment, like people, adapts. Entrepreneurs, right now, pour billions into "alternative"technologies as the costs of fossil fuels -- both financial and political -- go up, while the price of"clean" fuels go down. These things take time. Even some United Nations IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists say it's too late to reverse global warming. If so, oh well. Still others expect the "damage" to materialize centuries down the road, giving us plenty of time to change or adapt. Why does speculating about things like global warming replace direct and immediate threats? Iran, for example, seeks a bomb. If they use it -- and they threaten to -- imagine the environmental damage to the planet, to say nothing about the genocide-like loss of human life. But where is the urgency? Soon baby boomers will join the ranks of those on Social Security and Medicare, thus requiring younger workers to substantially increase their payroll taxes in order to allow boomers the same benefits enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. Where's the urgency? Policy-makers face immediate, predictable and foreseeable -- and especially in the case of Iran --serious around-the-corner issues. Yet we divert time,money and energy fretting about hypothetical"calamities" of global warming rather than dealing with real world/real time threats. You've gambled on global warming. I just hope we're alive to place a bet. -- Larry
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=if_theyre_wrong_about_gore-bal_warming,_so_what&ns=LarryElder&dt=03/15/2007&page=full&comments=true
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Global Warming High Priestess - Sen. Barbara Boxer
This article about Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposed legislation to cap carbon emissions should have all of us very, very worried. She is confident that any debate over man-caused global warming is over, (thanks to Al Gore and others). She believes American voters agree with her, after all, voters did give her Democrats control of Congress.
Let us not deceive ourselves. A "cap" on carbon emissions is nothing more than a disguise for an added tax. Our utility bills are going to be higher. We will pay more for electricity, which means everyone who uses electricity will have to charge more for their products and services, which means we will PAY MORE, and more, and more. I'm not an economist, but that much is pretty obvious.
And the WORST THING is that it revolves around the idea that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce global warming and lessen severe climate changes. This is wrong! It has been shown time, after time that the Earth's climate has warmed and cooled, independently of carbon dioxide levels and LONG before man was around burning fossil fuels. The world's top climate scientists agree. Don't believe what the United Nations IPCC says in their press releases. Read back through any of the statements I've posted on this blog, by our best scientists and experts. They all say the same thing.
But as I've been saying, science has been trampled, put down, and silenced on this issue. As Ms. Boxer says, addressing global warming is a "spiritual and moral obligation". Wow! This implies that anyone voting against her legislation is an evil sinner. If Ms. Boxer's legislation doesn't sound like part of a religious crusade, I don't know what does. This is going to get really interesting folks. It's not a game, it is about really, really big money, power and control. I hope Americans and the world wakes up and realizes we're being take for a ride. A big scam, a big lie.
Peter
Boxer Promises Carbon Cap Legislation
By Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer April 19, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, pledged Wednesday to push legislation that would put caps on carbon emissions in an effort to fight global warming. In a speech in Washington, D.C., Boxer said three senators -- Delaware Democrat Tom Carper, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders -- are writing legislation that would cap carbon emissions from power plants. She said the bills should be introduced in coming days.
The pending legislation would differ from existing proposals sponsored by Boxer and others that would create economy wide caps on carbon emissions. The pending proposals would specifically target power plant emissions in a move likely similar to the caps on sulfur emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Boxer said addressing global warming is a "spiritual and moral obligation" and chastised the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not setting national pollutant standards for cars and for not allowing states such as California to implement their own standards.
She pledged to pressure EPA administrator Steve Johnson to act on emissions in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision that the Clean Air Act does give the agency the authority to regulate carbon. When Johnson appears before the EPW Committee on April 24, Boxer said, "I will challenge him to use the power EPA has had all along to address global warming and has refused to use. The Supreme Court has left this administration with no excuses for further delay." "We must reduce carbon emissions enough so that we can stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm) to hold temperatures to less than two degrees Fahrenheit from today's levels," Boxer said."
In order to achieve this goal, we need to cap and eventually reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050," she added. Boxer said that as soon as she could secure enough votes from committee members on a "good" bill, she would move legislation from the committee to the full Senate, without regard to whether the legislation could withstand a Republican filibuster or presidential veto.
"Let people stand up and vote no on curbing greenhouse gases," Boxer said. "Let [the American] people see who cares about this issue." A spokesman for EPW Committee ranking member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Cybercast News Service that Inhofe "welcomes bringing climate legislation up for a vote." "Once the American people get a close look at the proposed 'solutions' to natural climate fluctuations, they will realize that all of the bills are all economic pain for no climate gain," Marc Morano said in an emailed comment. "Low- and middle-income Americans are already being strained by rising energy costs and any legislation that emits from Capitol Hill will do nothing to 'solve' the supposed climate crisis," Morano added.
Boxer also said that while she urges Americans to switch from traditional incandescent light bulbs to modern efficient ones, she is not currently pursuing legislation that would ban the old designs. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) last month introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that would effectively ban the old bulbs by 2020.
Let us not deceive ourselves. A "cap" on carbon emissions is nothing more than a disguise for an added tax. Our utility bills are going to be higher. We will pay more for electricity, which means everyone who uses electricity will have to charge more for their products and services, which means we will PAY MORE, and more, and more. I'm not an economist, but that much is pretty obvious.
And the WORST THING is that it revolves around the idea that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce global warming and lessen severe climate changes. This is wrong! It has been shown time, after time that the Earth's climate has warmed and cooled, independently of carbon dioxide levels and LONG before man was around burning fossil fuels. The world's top climate scientists agree. Don't believe what the United Nations IPCC says in their press releases. Read back through any of the statements I've posted on this blog, by our best scientists and experts. They all say the same thing.
But as I've been saying, science has been trampled, put down, and silenced on this issue. As Ms. Boxer says, addressing global warming is a "spiritual and moral obligation". Wow! This implies that anyone voting against her legislation is an evil sinner. If Ms. Boxer's legislation doesn't sound like part of a religious crusade, I don't know what does. This is going to get really interesting folks. It's not a game, it is about really, really big money, power and control. I hope Americans and the world wakes up and realizes we're being take for a ride. A big scam, a big lie.
Peter
Boxer Promises Carbon Cap Legislation
By Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer April 19, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, pledged Wednesday to push legislation that would put caps on carbon emissions in an effort to fight global warming. In a speech in Washington, D.C., Boxer said three senators -- Delaware Democrat Tom Carper, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders -- are writing legislation that would cap carbon emissions from power plants. She said the bills should be introduced in coming days.
The pending legislation would differ from existing proposals sponsored by Boxer and others that would create economy wide caps on carbon emissions. The pending proposals would specifically target power plant emissions in a move likely similar to the caps on sulfur emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Boxer said addressing global warming is a "spiritual and moral obligation" and chastised the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not setting national pollutant standards for cars and for not allowing states such as California to implement their own standards.
She pledged to pressure EPA administrator Steve Johnson to act on emissions in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision that the Clean Air Act does give the agency the authority to regulate carbon. When Johnson appears before the EPW Committee on April 24, Boxer said, "I will challenge him to use the power EPA has had all along to address global warming and has refused to use. The Supreme Court has left this administration with no excuses for further delay." "We must reduce carbon emissions enough so that we can stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm) to hold temperatures to less than two degrees Fahrenheit from today's levels," Boxer said."
In order to achieve this goal, we need to cap and eventually reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050," she added. Boxer said that as soon as she could secure enough votes from committee members on a "good" bill, she would move legislation from the committee to the full Senate, without regard to whether the legislation could withstand a Republican filibuster or presidential veto.
"Let people stand up and vote no on curbing greenhouse gases," Boxer said. "Let [the American] people see who cares about this issue." A spokesman for EPW Committee ranking member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Cybercast News Service that Inhofe "welcomes bringing climate legislation up for a vote." "Once the American people get a close look at the proposed 'solutions' to natural climate fluctuations, they will realize that all of the bills are all economic pain for no climate gain," Marc Morano said in an emailed comment. "Low- and middle-income Americans are already being strained by rising energy costs and any legislation that emits from Capitol Hill will do nothing to 'solve' the supposed climate crisis," Morano added.
Boxer also said that while she urges Americans to switch from traditional incandescent light bulbs to modern efficient ones, she is not currently pursuing legislation that would ban the old designs. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) last month introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that would effectively ban the old bulbs by 2020.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
This is one of the graphics used to get people all riled up about so called "greenhouse gases", in this case carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Of course every time we exhale we emit CO2, but nobody mentions that. Carbon dioxide sounds so evil, doesn't it? Plants need it as part of their growth process. We drink it every day in our carbonated beverages. Real dangerous stuff, isn't it!Here's what just one of the leading scientists says about carbon dioxide as it relates to global warming. Are you listening Big Al? (I doubt it.) Maybe Congress will listen. I have a novel idea, send this to every member of Congress. In fact send this whole blog to them....
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/
This is from Dr. Reid A. Bryson, "the Father of Modern Climatology":
Click here for the entire article: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-nonsense-detector-by-dr.html
These are what he feels are some very major and important misconceptions:
2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.
5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)