Climategate

[Wiscoman]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[steelish]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

It's easy to find both pros and cons

[Wiscoman]

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.

Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.

It's easy to find both pros and cons

It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

[SadisticNature]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[Midnytedreams]

Just recently the Scientific research that has been progress since 1970 by the U.N has found to have been tampered with. If you want to know the truth follow the money, those estimates in your links are now outdated the recent figure in in the trillions. Who is to get the money world wide but the same companies that pollute the most

In 1980 the government of United States gave billions for developement of clean energy
The EV1 an electrical car was made, it was not polluting, you could only lease them not buy them. Why becuase as soon as the government money stopped . All the cars were seized by the company and destroyed.

You can get a patent for anything from the government , even an idea or program, but try to get a patent on a self substaining vehicle {needing no out side power source} and the doors close. The technology is already there it has been since the 1980, Why is it not used because of power.

The same delegates and scientists who started the global warming scare in the 1970s now have the power, the secound suggestion they made at the conference was a world bank. one currency. Look at Europe now ...one currency... and they {the people in power in government}are now discussing the same for the united states.

The man standing on the street yelling, the world is coming to an end, wearing rags.
Has been replaced by the man in the 2000 dollar suit and private airplane stating it.

Ask yourself this the world is a huge place, of all the places , why was the middle east the cradle of civilization, simple because, at one time it was lush and fertile not sand, this happened way before automobiles and plants spi lling toxins into the air.

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

here is a site you might want to check out

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

[SadisticNature]

The evidence is that the climate is changing.

That doesn't give anyone the right to on no evidence at all pick their own reason and require everyone to back it.

Ask yourself this, if the middle east was the cradle of civilization because long ago the climate was cooler and it was lush and more fertile, what caused the heating long before the introduction of all these gasses? Why has the reason suddenly changed?

Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

[IAN 2411]

The evidence is that the climate is changing.



Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

It is a fact that Europe and the Uk have been getting colder over the last ten years. Forget about the few burning hot summers, records show that there was the same red hot summers in the late ninteen forties. I never said that the ice age that i was speaking about would only take 10 - 20 years, I said that it was a possibility in that amount of time. The Gulf Stream has been slowing down over many years, the records were stating that if the Gulf stream kept on slowing at the same speed it would stop in 10 - 20 years, and neither did i say a global ice age. Basic geograph, an adverse weather condition in one part of the world, will cause adverse weather conditions up to 12,000 miles away, and that is almost half way around the world. Part of my post above was copied and pasted directly from the latest encyclopedia, we in the UK are dependent on the Gulf Steam, and it is a fact and i havent got time to teach you basic geography. If in fact there is global warming, there is more rain, that leads to flooded rivers, the rivers of Europe outlets are in the north. That brings us back to the theory the scientists were talking about, and the fact is the Gulf Stream has slowed down. In stead of trying to score quick points against other post writers, read the posts first and then check the facts.

Regards ian.


Give respect to receive respect

[DuncanONeil]

But then does the same not also hold true for global warming as global cooling?

The evidence is that the climate is changing.

That doesn't give anyone the right to on no evidence at all pick their own reason and require everyone to back it.

Ask yourself this, if the middle east was the cradle of civilization because long ago the climate was cooler and it was lush and more fertile, what caused the heating long before the introduction of all these gasses? Why has the reason suddenly changed?

Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

[Wiscoman]

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

That's just plain untrue.

2000-09 may be warmest decade on record, U.N. weather agency says

This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday, the second day of a 192-nation climate conference.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said.

In central Africa and southern Asia, this will probably be the warmest year, but overall, 2009 will be "about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the organization...

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it untrue?

That's just plain untrue.

[Wiscoman]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Only on one side, unfortunately.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

I did. Not a fact.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

A-freakin'-men.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

No argument there.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[steelish]

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

[DuncanONeil]

Well, apparently we know which side it is that blindly follows one side, just stick with Wisco. Which side is the one that merely denies the others right to have an opinion and question data?

Only on one side, unfortunately.



Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.



I did. Not a fact.



A-freakin'-men.



No argument there.



Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees.



The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.



The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[DuncanONeil]

And do not forget that the models that are used to predict the future are merely programs written to tinker with the raw data input to produce a result.
We do not know what the tinker rules are, or even the raw data input.
Oh yeah, the US has been reducing CO2 for years, and it seems that we have done a better job than the people that claim to be complying with Kyoto!

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[Thorne]

And do not forget that the models that are used to predict the future are merely programs written to tinker with the raw data input to produce a result.
We do not know what the tinker rules are, or even the raw data input.

The models are developed from historical data, then run through historical scenarios to insure they match up with actual climate conditions. If they do not, then the programs are "tinkered with" to correct any variations. The data remains the same, only the models are changed. Once they do an accurate job of "post-dicting" climate conditions, they are allowed to run into the future. There are many different models, using many different data sets. All are showing a marked average increase in global temperature. There will be some warming trends and some cooling trends, lasting several years sometimes. But the low temperatures in the cooling trends are not as low as they have been historical, and the high temps in the warming trends are slightly higher than historical. The average temperature is definitely rising.

And the raw data is there to be studied, if you want it. The problem is, the whole damned thing is so complex that, without a lot of study and experience the average person cannot easily understand that data. Even among the experts, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions gathered from the models can vary significantly. But the trend is still upwards.

As for the current supposed cooling trend, remember that the sun has just been going through a sunspot minima period, one which lasted longer than expected. Now, it seems, the sunspots are beginning to return, which will probably mean another warming trend. With a peak temperature higher than the last trend's peak.

[DuncanONeil]

Nothing you say changes the fact that the data is "corrected". Nothing you say changes the facts that the data is not being made available, and that the factor of "correction" and the formulae are not forthcoming.
There should be no need to "correct" historical data. Historical data is fact and if you are to determine trends the raw data is sufficient. If historical data is being "corrected" I find the conclusion already suspect.

Not all models show a marked increase in temperature. Even a single model does not show only increases in temperature. Why then is that the only thing we are supposed to hear or believe? It is harder to believe when it is revealed that the prognostications are in fact the worst case scenario, not the "average" to which you refer.

Average temperatures in the past have been much higher than now, yet the planet seemed to be able to fix itself, presence of man notwithstanding!

Then there is the constant tinkering with the historical record. Along with the fact that the reports are not in concrete terms but in differences of an average. Since the average can be selected, or the "correction" is the determined average, the data over, or under, said average is again suspect.

The models are developed from historical data, then run through historical scenarios to insure they match up with actual climate conditions. If they do not, then the programs are "tinkered with" to correct any variations. The data remains the same, only the models are changed. Once they do an accurate job of "post-dicting" climate conditions, they are allowed to run into the future. There are many different models, using many different data sets. All are showing a marked average increase in global temperature. There will be some warming trends and some cooling trends, lasting several years sometimes. But the low temperatures in the cooling trends are not as low as they have been historical, and the high temps in the warming trends are slightly higher than historical. The average temperature is definitely rising.

And the raw data is there to be studied, if you want it. The problem is, the whole damned thing is so complex that, without a lot of study and experience the average person cannot easily understand that data. Even among the experts, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions gathered from the models can vary significantly. But the trend is still upwards.

As for the current supposed cooling trend, remember that the sun has just been going through a sunspot minima period, one which lasted longer than expected. Now, it seems, the sunspots are beginning to return, which will probably mean another warming trend. With a peak temperature higher than the last trend's peak.

[steelish]

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

lol. No, that's proof positive of puritan attitudes dying out. (Thank God!)

[Lion]

on a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

lol

[DuncanONeil]

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.

Seems that, in spite of data, all the Goreites are capable of say is that "you are wrong!", No refutation, no counter, just the school yard taunt that the side I believe is correct.

It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

That is not "proof-positive" of global warming, that is proof-positive of a cooling of morals!

[Midnytedreams]

That is not "proof-positive" of global warming, that is proof-positive of a cooling of morals!

[/QUOTE]

Have to disagree here those crotchless bloomers look more tempting than the thongs.

[Wiscoman]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;830323]

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[DuncanONeil]

And you are unwilling to consider any of the evidence presented to you. That puts you in the same boat in which you wish to install me. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.
Who is Glenn Beck?

[QUOTE=Wiscoman;830390]

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[Wiscoman]

And you are unwilling to consider any of the evidence presented to you.

It'd be a good trick on my part because you haven't actually offered any evidence. All you've done is make a bunch of declarations. If there's a link you've provided to prove anything in this thread, I must've missed it.

[DuncanONeil]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!
It is clear that the planet has gone through cycles like this before and that such cycles could not have been caused as Goreites believe by little ole us. Also there is no real compelling evidence that we are the cause either. In this decade it was reported that an error had been made and the hottest year on record was 1934. Yet now the data for this decade does nothing but increase each year, defying the logic of natural events. And in contrast to the actual temperatures that have been declining. Cows pump millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere, as do trees. In fact every living thing adds its share toi the environment. Who are we to claim that intimate knowledge of such an organism is ours to know, when we do not even know all the parts of said organism!

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[Wiscoman]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!...

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[DuncanONeil]

Bit harsh don't you think?

It does appear that you are correct. But I wonder, with the effects of acid rain so obvious and the disagreement in the issue at hand.
Add to that the proposals for CO2 cap and trade may not be of the smae nature as what was laid out in the previous plan.
Think I might need additional research. But the threat laid out by the President about controlling CO2 makes me worry more!

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[Wiscoman]

Bit harsh don't you think?

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

"Sorry, but that's bullshit."
You think that does not qualify as harsh?!