Global Warming Solutions are NOT cost effective, so let’s do something that IS cost effective!

I’d like to hear more from those concerned a lot about how Global Warming will harm humanity regarding their calculations.    Kyoto is now recognized by anybody who understands the issues as failed and misguided.  Ethanol’s bizarre rise to fame was a great example of how “good intentions” often combine with opportunism, profit, and politics to make a dumb idea even dumber  (ethanol in early forms actually increases GW, though newer techniques do not.  However it’s still a questionable use of corn and innovation, fueled by farm belt political and profit agendas that conflict with common sense).

It seems to me there are – broadly – three camps in the debate:

1.  Extreme Skeptics.    “No global warming is going on”.    These folks are basically in denial about the large body of evidence such as …. thermometer and satellite ane ice core records …. that make it clear we are experiencing some warming.    These folks also insist wrongly that the evidence the warming is “human caused” is bogus or lies or  a science conspiracy.    Although there are legitimate concerns about some of the science surrounding global warming there is NO DOUBT we have warming and little doubt that “most” of that warming is human caused.     HOWEVER I do not think the warming carries the hazards often claimed.

3.  Alarmists.   This group  seems to have flunked math class…. many times….  they generally argue on general ground that we need to reduce emissions without bothering to calculate the costs of doing so and measuring those costs against the alternatives (feeding people who are starving NOW, getting water to people who need water NOW, educating people who need it NOW).    There are environmental catastrophes of biblical proportion and slowing development to meet our CO2 agenda appears to conflict with getting standards of living to rise.   It is bordering on nonsense to fear catastrophe from global warming even on long time frames.    Humans adapt daily to temperature changes and we can adapt centurially to a rise of 2-4 degrees if in fact it does materialize as projected.

2.  Common sense.   Moderate mitigation, much more focus on current emergency and infrastructure improvements.

34 thoughts on “Global Warming Solutions are NOT cost effective, so let’s do something that IS cost effective!

  1. Joe people with common sense understand there is climate change. It happens all the time but it has a lot more to do with the forces of the universe that we know so little about and little if anything to do directly with man.

    That is just plain arrogance.

    The sun most likely plays the largest role in how our climate changes on our planet barring any other natural disaster – asteroid, super volcanoes, etc.

    Adaptation is the answer, always has been, always will be.

    The CO2mmunists have all glommed onto AGW as their high speed vehicle to impose massive taxes and control over the people on this planet – it is a complete scam and ALL the people behind and connected to it should spend the rest of their lives in Siberia. Fitting punishment for sure.

    The 100’s of billions of dollars already bilked out of honest hardworking people under the guise of saving the planet has to amount to one of the largest crimes against humanity ever.

    You want to harness and control climate change learn out to terraform another planet in our solar system and only then will science be able to play a role in controlled climate management anything short of that is like playing Russian Roulette with our climate and existence.

  2. 1. Extreme Skeptics. ”No global warming is going on”.

    The FoxCo, Limbaugh, and Glennster posse, aka GOP Boneheads.

    • I hate the GOP as much as the Dems…they are no different.

      Dems path to tyranny warp 10 Mr. Sulu.
      GOP path to tyranny warp 8 Mr. Sulu.

      Can’t stand Fox either…total sellouts. They only do what they have to make money. None of the media is interested in the truth anymore.

      The irony Horatiox the very issue you brought to light here on Joe’s blog…is a smoking gun and no one will touch it but someday it is all going to come crashing down and the poor hardworking people of this country are going to end up paying dearly for the shenanigans of these miscreants.

  3. There exists plenty of evidence of global warming over the last few decades, Glennster. And man-made CO2 has increased as well, as have other GHGs. One problem appears to be correlating the data–ie that increases in man-made CO2/GHG definitely result in warming, or to what extent (ie is it statistically significant), or how a “time-lag’ operates, etc. While I am slightly skeptical of the Gore/IPCC models, that doesn’t mean one sides with the FoxCo denialists (…what… Glennster dissed FoxCo??? You were just praising them a few days ago. They must have had Al Sharpton on or somethin’)

  4. Iceland’s volcano will bring even more confusion to the mix, since it’s very likely that 2010 will now be a net “cold year”. This won’t tell us anything about the long term warming trend, though alarmists will foolishly fail to note that this type of event suggests nature always holds the highest cards in the warming equations, where human caused changes are very small compared to natural forces. When Nature plays her cards all hell breaks loose.

    • You are absolutely right Joe and that is the key reason why I don’t support cap & trade, etc…at the end of the day it will have no impact on any climate trend and it will only hurt us all as a society.

      I still can’t believe MSNBC stated it is too cold in Iceland for a volcano they only happen in places like Hawaii.

      Seriously we some serious incompentence on the airwaves.

      Someday when we are actually smart enough to understand this incredibly complex issue I contend we will find out that the key to all of this is the sun and its recurring patterns of activity our orbital pattern around it.

      In the meantime we need to learn to adapt and not tax.

  5. A blizzard, or a volcano, or even a cooling trend over a few years does not suffice as refutation of AGW. That’s sort of the FoxNews-obsessed yokel reaction–look at all this snow, Ethel–the lib-rawls and e-cologists have been lyin’ to us!

    The cap and trade does not really cost average citizens much–a few dollars a year. The legislation does take aim at the biggest culprits– oil and coal companies (rightfully so).

    • A blizzard, or a volcano, or even a cooling trend over a few years does not suffice as refutation of AGW

      Righto. In fact only a handful of responsible climate expert scientists don’t believe in AGW, though I think a growing number of scientists in the field are realizing that the alarmist catastrophism preached by some is wrong. A frustrating issue for me is that climate modellers are very unwilling to define the conditions that would undermine various aspects of the science. Good science *DEMANDS* that your hypothesis will be rejected under certain conditions where it fails to predict/define things well, and climate science generally dodges that bullet too casually.

  6. Funny. I’m sure that ‘carbon credits’ and the like would entail total globalization and control of signatory countries’ economies. I don’t need more than that to see where the power hungry – and don’t forget the history of the ‘Great Game’ has taken us back to energy wars in central Asia with the force provided to secure the Atlantic Ocean for shipping aiding and abetting – have motive to flim-flam their way into control, finally subjugating Russia.
    Why do you think Copenhagen fell flat on its face ? Small countries saw a hoax and scam going on.
    It doesn’t have to be of the nature of this one…but it sure is an example of what the real game might be.

    • Opit the link you gave offers a RIDICULOUS notion, which is preposterous:

      “Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population.

      I’ve seen this before – it’s a red herring approach from right wing anti warming folks to try to associate the real (though often misguided and alarmist) concerns of warming folks with evil genocidal Nazi sympathizers.

      • Joe again it isn’t a red herring it is the stated position of several people including key advisors to Obama.

        Rockefeller believes, Holdren believes it, etc… the list goes on. Why do you refuse to actually investigate where these people stand and what they believe?

      • Glenn YOU are the one who doesn’t investigate things! It’s complete nonsense to think Obama / Holdren / anybody in the administration favors climate genocide – that is kooky, frothing nut case insanity! Where do you come up with this stuff? I KNOW you do not actually believe that. It’s simply too ridiculous.

  7. Flawed computer models may have exaggerated the effects of an Icelandic volcano eruption that has grounded tens of thousands of flights, stranded hundreds of thousands of passengers and cost businesses hundreds of millions of euros.

    The computer models that guided decisions to impose a no-fly zone across most of Europe in recent days are based on incomplete science and limited data, according to European officials. As a result, they may have over-stated the risks to the public, needlessly grounding flights and damaging businesses.

    We can’t even get simple air stream/flow models right yet somehow we believe they can predict climate 100 year out.

  8. One of the things I have always suspected about the AGW and the Progressives is one of their main goals is population control.

    They believe the selection and elimination of groups of people will make for a better planet in the long run. It is no different than the Nazi’s just isn’t mis-directed as a calling for a superior race but the end result is the same. Millions upon millions of innocent people end up dead.

    Face it the left in this country and in this world just hate people. They have for centuries, always inventing new ways to murder millions and get away with it. They have no vision, they only have their inability to seek innovation and adaptation to create a better world they resort to control which ultimately always fails and backfires.

    Any reasonable person has to conclude that the people behind this process must suffer from a form of mental illness. How can anyone rationalize the murder of innocent people whether they are newborn or old?

    • Glenn. Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Why is it SO HARD for you to assume those who hold the opposite view on warming simply … disagree on technical points and the interpretation of the science. Demonizing them does nothing of value.

      • Joe they are ones saying this…I am not demonizing I am repeating their positions.

        Cass Sustein one of Obama’s closest advisors wanted to sterlize the population through the water supply.

        How can you reconcile that?

  9. Indeed, Holdren and his co-authors advocated for non-coercive means of population control. After Holdren and his co-authors discussed involuntary fertility control in an environmental sciences book published more than 30 years ago, they concluded that “[a] far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”

  10. Just the fact that they think it is necessary to control the population exposes who they are.

    We do not need to control the population growth. It is an absurd notion that somehow they think they can predict how many people can live on earth and at the same time understand just which people are going to be removed from the planet that in actuality could provide the answers to adapabilty, etc..if given the chance to live.

    In the US alone Joe since Roe vs Wade over 50,000,000 abortions. How many Einsteins, Martin Luther King’s, were in that group?

    Even Ginsberg stated publicly that she thought Roe vs Wade was about population control.

    Roe has even admitted her story about her rape was a lie, the whole thing was a lie and was designed by the liberals as a means to control the population because they love playing the role of God and the power over life and death is their sugar rush.

    Don’t forget Joe it was the liberals in this country that were aligned with the Nazi’s and in fact you probably don’t know this but there were times in this country where Madison Square Gardens was filled with Nazis that flew over here to join their liberal friends right here in America.

  11. Ted Turner would also like it legal for families to prune themselves he even stated on more than one occassion if he could he would kill some of his own children because he has too many children.

    Think about that Joe…that is just sick.

    • GLENN! Where do you get this crazy stuff? You can’t take quotes or events totally out of context/meaning, slap on a label, and say they have meaning. If you really care about he truth you go to the body of a persons work / statements / activities and you learn from that.

      I’d really encourage you to go to primary sources for the facts on these crazy accusations. You’ll find that your sources take quotes out of context, outright lie, or just present things out of any relevant context.

    • Joe I heard the first time he said this. I saw the speech it was near Christmas several years ago.

      Joe it was in the 90’s when he gave the speech.

      He is on record for this. He now states things differently but he did say these things. Nothing out of context.

      Back in 1999.
      As recently as last month, the father (Turner) of five children called for a worldwide one-child-per-family policy to reduce the world population. “We could do it in a very humane way”
      From Nicholas Eberstadt with AEI in DC.

      In 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. Below is his quote.

      “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

      If you really cared about the truth Joe you would expose these scumbags for the Nazis that they really are.

      Oh just to be fair…Turner changed his population thoughts…

      He just wants to reduce the population by 2/3’s.

      Of course being a hypocrite like every liberal that is the least of his offenses against the human race. Having 5 children himself. I would bet he would come up with a child-credit scheme to swap child credits from families that don’t have children.

      That is how these people think. He has invested billions into population reduction, assisted in paying for countless abortions around the world – this is how the modern conqueror does it. Kills babies.

  12. Let’s take a different approach on this…

    Do you think forced steralization of the population through additives in the drinking water is a rational and sound idea?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s