Comments on: Global Warmers Show Me the (Taxpayer) $$$

By: Harrison

Harrison — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:46:04 +0000

I read that book but the difference is the people cut the trees down and thus directly caused their own demise. I do not think man plays a role in “global warming” and thus do not see it that way.

Again, looking at the graph posted above:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/450000-with-green-line.jpg

It is very clear the climate on earth is constantly changing and it wasn’t doing so because of mankind.

Or check this article out:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=333327577562530&secure=1&show=1&rss=1

By: Joe Markowitz

Joe Markowitz — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:39:24 +0000

Of course there is a debate about what to do about global warming, and of course there are a lot of ways to rationalize not doing anything. It's kind of like the debate that Jared Diamond imagined was taking place on Easter Island, when the remaining people probably argued about whether it would be a good idea to chop down the last tree standing. .-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It's Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:32:40 +0000

I understand what you are saying but I think you fail to see that global warmers view the issue as a religion and do not listen to reason. There is actually plenty of scientific, peer reviewed artices however Democrats are not interested in this because those things stand in the way of them tapping into a huge source of government revenue.

Yes DWP does tax water in a way but it is a charge for getting, cleaning, and distributing water not taxing water vapor emissions… two different things.

I do not think anybody has failed to raise issues questioning global warming. Had they failed Cap and Trade or Kyoto a more than a decade ago would have the force of law.

You say the issue of global warming will not be won in a debate but you are wrong. Obama is having a debate with his own party and with Americans about Cap and Trade. If people honestly thought that all of the worst case scenarios would come true then the debate would have been won. People are very skeptical and when stories come out about opposing scientists or economists having their work suppressed it does not build trust. That is why Al Gore will not allow himself to be challenged.

I can take one set of facts and, depending upon how I frame the question or input the data get two completely different “results.”

By: Joe Markowitz

Joe Markowitz — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:21:30 +0000

Let me try to explain this to you one more time. What I said was that neither Al Gore nor you nor I nor anybody else, can resolve the question of whether CO2 emissions cause global warming by debating about it. The only way you can resolve that scientific question is by scientific methods. It is a very different process from the process of debate. If you want to answer that question, you need to gather some data, and do some experiments, or you at least need to understand what the scientists are saying who have gathered the data and done the experiments. If there are no peer-reviewed articles in any scientific journals questioning the general theory, it’s not because there is some kind of vast conspiracy to keep reputable science out of the journals in order to advance some political agenda. It’s because there are no reputable scientific studies questioning this theory. You acknowledge that big oil has plenty of backers, and you are aware that they have spent millions trying to prove that CO2 emissions are not causing climate change, but so far they have failed.

And by the way, why can’t the government tax water if it wants to? The DWP sends me a bill every other month that measures every drop that I use. Last time I checked it had some taxes on it too.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It’s Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:56:19 +0000

So Al Gore is well informed enough to lecture world leaders, help them craft policy, make a movie, testify in front of the U.S. Senate but not debate somebody? Sounds like a cop out to me.

Data shows that the climate fluctuates on earth and has ever since the earth has been around. The graph I used shows this going back hundreds of thousands of years. Many things affect the climate from how close the earth is to the sun to solar activity to the oceans, etc. Humans can’t know everything and if you skew or ignore one or more data points your results will be useless. Many of the people who are getting on the “global warming” bandwagon are doing so for political reasons. Either they don’t like rich people, think we should all drive toy cars, or think we should give our money to poor people in 3rd World countries and will thus use any excuse they can think of in order to make this happen. There is a lot of money at stake here. Whenever there is money at stake there is bias.

So what if Carlin was told not to work on climate change? This is from the same president who said he was not going to “politicize” science. Sounds like he’s going back on his word to me.

You point to the old “big oil” argument. Big oil might have their backers but there are many more people holding the opposite ideas and they are very vocal.

Besides if you look into the role of H2O and “global warming” you’ll see that CO2 does a very poor job of holding or trapping heat and water is the one that causes most of the “problems” but Liberals can’t exactly tax water, can they?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

It’s all a game to get money out of people’s hands to fund social systems and you have people like the guy at NASA who, in the 70s, was just as into the global cooling scam as he now is into the global warming swindle.