Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Solar winds down to 50 year low
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, September 24, 2008

That's the announcement NASA scientists made today:
"The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s," says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "This is the weakest it's been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago."
What does that mean? It means the heliosphere will contract. What is the heliosphere?
The heliosphere is a bubble of magnetism springing from the sun and inflated to colossal proportions by the solar wind. Every planet from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is inside it. The heliosphere is our solar system's first line of defense against galactic cosmic rays. High-energy particles from black holes and supernovas try to enter the solar system, but most are deflected by the heliosphere's magnetic fields.
Solar winds inflate the heliosphere and push it out beyond our solar system. A contraction naturally means that more of what it keeps out will get in.

So? According to some theories (Svensmark - pdf), if you have more galactic cosmic rays, you'll see more cloud formation on earth. And that has a direct effect on the earth's albedo. Obviously, it also would have a direct effect on the amount of warming, or cooling, experienced on earth.

Anthony Watts says:
In simple terms, the lower the albedo of the Earth, the greater amount of solar radiation it will absorb. The greater the albedo, the more solar radiation is reflected. This of course affects earthly temperatures.
In the last few years, the earth's albedo has been rising. Watts provides a good discussion and some facts, figures and charts to explain the phenomenon as well.

Timothy Birdnow provides us with the bottom line:
This will allow us to see if we are really in the throes of Anthropogenic Global Warming; if temperatures rise (and they haven`t since 1998) then factors other than solar activity are driving climate trends, if not then the greenhouse gas theory is falsified.
Conditions are setting themselves up perfectly to test both the theories concerning earth's albedo and AGW. Maybe, within a few years, we can finally put the AGW nonsense to bed.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If AGW does turn out to be BS, it will be interesting to see Gore’s reaction. Most likely, if he has the lack of character I suspect, he will move right along to the next man made/American made/Western guilt crises.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Like the salesman with his foot in the door - good luck getting them to go away.
They’ll morph into some other reason we ought to live as our ’betters’ tell us.

The first indication of a change in sales pitch was Global Warming to Climate Change.
There will be more.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You didn’t quite connect all the dots, but I think I understand. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is what I got out of your post: lower solar winds = smaller heliosphere = more interference = more clouds = less solar radiation = cooler tempatures and the converse.

I’m not sure I buy the AGW theory, but I still am left to ask "is there anything wrong with being nice to the planet and striving to keep it as natural and unpolluted as possible for us and future generations?"
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
I’m not sure I buy the AGW theory, but I still am left to ask "is there anything wrong with being nice to the planet and striving to keep it as natural and unpolluted as possible for us and future generations?"
No Rick, and no one is arguing we shouldn’t. No one wants dirty water or polluted air, etc.

What’s being argued is we don’t have enough information to commit to economy destroying measures right now. So let’s test the theories - and let’s see if, in fact, the sun is causing what has been happening or it is a single trace gas in the atmosphere of which man produces an insignificant amount.

Too much to ask?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I guess this is where I disagee with my own party. I’m not sure why the Republicans are so against environmental protections. I would willingly pay extra for things to cover the cost of doing it right. And, would it really destroy the economy or just refocus the economy onto products and services that aren’t bad for the environment? I think the Republicans lose a lot of votes, especially out west, with their environmental policies.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
Global warming hysteria can hurt the planet, actually. If we’re investing massive resources to cut our CO2 emissions, and it turns out CO2 emissions are effectively irrelevant (or, gasp, helpful, which actually has some solid evidence behind it, especially if it turns out not to be a significant greenhouse gas in anything but climate simulations), than those are massive resources that weren’t moved to nuclear power plants, or other effective environmental solutions.

Gaia doesn’t care about intentions at all. Misallocating resources is still bad, no matter what the intentions. It is imperative that we find the truth, and not try to save the environment based on political assumptions.

This is part of why I have such low regard for environmentalism as a movement; far too much assuming and not enough fact-ing. (And I mean that in a deep and profound way, not a trivial objection about surface approaches. I mean that environmentalists seem to have very nearly no regard for truth, as a movement.)
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri
I guess this is where I disagee with my own party. I’m not sure why the Republicans are so against environmental protections.
Could it be that it is a difference between what some consider reasonable environmental protection and unreasonable protection?

And is there any reason why those who oppose what they consider to be unreasonable protection shouldn’t demand proof from those pushing it of its validity before agreeing to it?
And, would it really destroy the economy or just refocus the economy onto products and services that aren’t bad for the environment?
Every study I’ve seen says it would cripple the economy - why do you suppose, for instance, that almost all of the European Kyoto signatories are now looking for a way out of the pact?

The drops proposed in CO2 output in the outlying years are draconian and would cost trillions to achieve. Think our economy is in the shape needed to pursue unproven goals like that?
I think the Republicans lose a lot of votes, especially out west, with their environmental policies.
I would guess they lose votes in places like that because they’re assumed to be what they’re not.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I guess this is where I disagee with my own party. I’m not sure why the Republicans are so against environmental protections.
Yes, Rick, I can see you’ve carefully studied the Republican policies of loot & pollute. I’m surprised you can call yourself a Republican given that the rest of us are interested in brown water, dead fish, dead birds, fewer animals, more smoke in the air, etc etc. Sounds like you’re not on the same page with the rest of us looter polluters. Are you sure you’re a Republican?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I would guess they lose votes in places like that because they’re assumed to be what they’re not.
They are judged on their history and they have a lot of bad history to overcome.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
Yes, Rick, I can see you’ve carefully studied the Republican policies of loot & pollute. I’m surprised you can call yourself a Republican given that the rest of us are interested in brown water, dead fish, dead birds, fewer animals, more smoke in the air, etc etc. Sounds like you’re not on the same page with the rest of us looter polluters. Are you sure you’re a Republican?
I’m quite certain of it. Although if there ever were a serious libertarian candidate, I just might jump ship!
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
I’m quite certain of it. Although if there ever were a serious libertarian candidate, I just might jump ship!
Really and so have you examined the l(L)ibertarian take on pollution? If Rethuglikkans are bad on the environment, I’ll guarantee you’ll choke on libertarian policies...I won’t debate your party affiliation, I’ll just question your commitment to reasoned debate and inquiry into the issues.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Really and so have you examined the l(L)ibertarian take on pollution? If Rethuglikkans are bad on the environment, I’ll guarantee you’ll choke on libertarian policies...I won’t debate your party affiliation, I’ll just question your commitment to reasoned debate and inquiry into the issues.
Actually, I have. Here is their statement from their platform:

"We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior."
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
They are judged on their history and they have a lot of bad history to overcome.
Such as?
Actually, I have. Here is their statement from their platform:
And of course, you understand that the Libertarian platform is calling for government to back out of environmental regulation and leave it to free market as well as "environmental advocates and social pressure" to "change behavior", don’t you?

If you find that appealing, why then are you seemingly lining up with the left which is insisting on more government regulation and more government intrusion?

It seems the Libertarian platform is much closer to the Republican stance on the issue than the Democrat’s.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
For the record, I never said CO2 emissions were bad. This is what I said:

"is there anything wrong with being nice to the planet and striving to keep it as natural and unpolluted as possible for us and future generations?"
And I would also pose the following: until we know that CO2 emissions (or any other type of pollutant for that matter) are definitively not bad, would it not be better to act cautiously and try to limit them?


And for Jeremy, who said:
If we’re investing massive resources to cut our CO2 emissions, and it turns out CO2 emissions are effectively irrelevant (or, gasp, helpful, which actually has some solid evidence behind it, especially if it turns out not to be a significant greenhouse gas in anything but climate simulations), than those are massive resources that weren’t moved to nuclear power plants, or other effective environmental solutions
.

I never said I advocated the investment of massive resources into cutting CO2 emissions, vice find non-emitting sources such as nuclear power. I happen to firmly believe we should be heavily investing in energy sources that are "effective environmental solutions" to use your phrase. We should also be investing in technology to stop the emissions of CO2 (and the many, many other damaging particulates) from our cars. We should have done it years ago, and probably could have had it not been for the fact that BOTH parties are beholden to the oil companies.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
Rick:"I would willingly pay extra for things to cover the cost of doing it right."

In a free country, no one would stop you.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
We should also be investing in technology to stop the emissions of CO2 (and the many, many other damaging particulates) from our cars.
CO2 is now a damaging emmission?

Rick, I don’t normally suggest such things to people who post here -
- STOP BREATHING -
you are polluting my environment,
you are a producer of damaging and harmful CO2 gas.

Before you do though, would you be willing to sign my petition to ban
Dihydrogen monoxide? It’s another dangerous chemical that is far to
prevelent in our modern environment.
In case you are unaware of the dangers, and you may be - given your concern about CO2

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
If you find that appealing, why then are you seemingly lining up with the left which is insisting on more government regulation and more government intrusion?
I would hardly say it is lining up with the left to advocate that we should be good environmental stewards and that we should punish those who refuse to do so.

If you read the LP’s platform a little more closely it says:

"Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife."

Absent fully investing individuals with the right to go after polluters, second best option is to at least attempt to regulate them.

And for your "Such as?": shall we discuss the absolute struggle against raising fuel economy standards when the technology is available to do so?
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
CO2 is now a damaging emmission?
hey looker, you should go work for one of the campaigns ... you’re great at pulling a few words out of context and distorting them to make a point. Maybe you should start combing Limbaugh’s stuff and give The One a little advice for his next commercial.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
second best option is to at least attempt to regulate them.
Is it, really? How about licenses to pollute as an alternative....
shall we discuss the absolute struggle against raising fuel economy standards when the technology is available to do so?
At what cost to the consumer? It is POSSIBLE to eliminate carbon emissions, just at a cost that no one will bear, just as there is technology available to do many things, but at what cost?

Rick you’re being nonsensical...you don’t like Republican policies, but support more radical libertarian policies, except when you don’t...
I’m sorry you’re like the guy who wants ice cream and cake, but wants it to be non-fattening and made from broccoli and tofu...it all SOUNDS nice, but isn’t doable.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife."
Right - and I have no problem with that. However it has little or nothing to do with government regulation.

I simply wanted to make sure you understood that.
Absent fully investing individuals with the right to go after polluters, second best option is to at least attempt to regulate them.
But that isn’t the Libertarian party’s "second best option" is it?
And for your "Such as?": shall we discuss the absolute struggle against raising fuel economy standards when the technology is available to do so?
None of the government’s business. Let consumers decide what they want. What consumers have demonstrated they don’t want time and time again is government deciding what they should want and that decision costing them extra money.

If consumers find value in cars with high fuel economy they’ll buy them. If not, they won’t. And that goes back to your supposed love for Libertarian position that claims "environmental advocates and social pressure" being all that’s necessary to "change behavior".

Obviously you don’t believe in that at all, do you?

So when you claim:
I would hardly say it is lining up with the left to advocate that we should be good environmental stewards and that we should punish those who refuse to do so.
Your words betray you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I never said I advocated the investment of massive resources into cutting CO2 emissions
And I never said you did. My use of the word "If" was not extraneous. It was an example.
We should have done it years ago, and probably could have had it not been for the fact that BOTH parties are beholden to the oil companies.
If there’s anything to learn from the past few years, it is that the non-oil-based technologies were not just a matter of caring enough, but a matter of serious technological and engineering issues, and there’s no terribly strong evidence that we’ve got enough technology yet, either. If it were so easy to build non-oil-based solutions, we’d have them by now.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri
The point that I think Rick seems to have lost to the din is that every Republican President has supported a clean environment .. every one.

That "bad history" is often a matter of interpretation (and in the minds of many college professors).

But what good is an effort that bypasses the biggest sources of pollution for a "pie in the sky" hope/dream/nightmare that may be folly.

And, hey, when evaluating each of these, be sure to "follow the money".

The whole AGW based "cap and trade" creates a new pool of "publicly extracted monies" to keep those Wall Street types, who pillaged the housing market, up and running for years to come. Lehman (RIP) had identified this market for it’s future efforts. That’s where the money is, but they need the politicians to make it happen.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
It is POSSIBLE to eliminate carbon emissions, just at a cost that no one will bear, just as there is technology available to do many things, but at what cost?
Yes, it’s possible and apparently at a cost that people will bear .... and it could have been acheived years ago with the right policies from our government ...

www.Chevrolet.com/FuelCell
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
As a conservative Christian Republican who voted both times for Reagan, I don’t care whether or not global warming is "proved" to be a "fraud" because of some mumbo-jumbo about the sun. There is a scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from American automobiles and power plants are destroying the ozone layer, leading to unrecoverable catastrophic global climate change within the next fifteen years. Indeed, we’re already seeing it with such historically destructive hurricanes such as Ike and Katrina (the most powerful storm ever seen). I have always valued clean air and clean water for myself and the children of our country and just don’t understand why some people selfishly resist common sense solutions to a global problem that threatens to destroy our conservative Christian American way of life. I think they should be punished.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Yes, it’s possible and apparently at a cost that people will bear .... and it could have been acheived years ago with the right policies from our government ...
You mean by restricting access to the cheaper fuel and making people pay MORE for transportation? Because NO THE TECHNOLOGY wasn’t there....all along or otherwise, IT’S STILL NOT HERE. If it were we would not tax gasoline and then send some of those tax proceeds to ethanol or the like...in short taking money from the viable technology and subsidizing the NON-VIABLE technology. Saying it is so does not make it so.

And docjim505 please, please tell me you are Ott Scerb...because otherwise that was one of the silliest postings I’ve seen.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
the right policies from our government
Chevrolet.com is part of the government now? (but then, why not, every investment house seems to be these days)

If it was so spiffy, why didn’t Chevy just do it without a government policy (read, government M-O-N-E-Y).
Libertarians are hardly likely to force or even encourage Chevrolet via any financial mechanism to make the fuelcell dream reality. That’s not what letting the market decide means.

You get that Libertarians don’t like government, right?
And Republicans (in theory at least, though lately, not so much) like smaller government.
And Democrats believe there’s pretty much no problem more government can’t solve.

I’d say you’re neither Republican nor Libertarian Rick.

As to CO2 being damaging - you were the one that put it in the phrase
We should also be investing in technology to stop the emissions of CO2 (and the many, many other damaging particulates) from our cars.
And I quoted it, in completeness, so people could see the context I was referring to.

If you don’t want it lumped in with ’other damaging emissions’ don’t include it in the phrase. Since we’re reading it, not hearing it, I can’t tell that you wanted to emphasise the ’damaging’ bit only in reference to the ’other’ emissions and not CO2, and you didn’t use the italic, bold or CAPS capabilities of your keyboard to make the emphasis yourself.

Besides Rick, if you believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions, we both know you must think they’re damaging, otherwise, why are you worried about reducing them. Why worry about reducing something that isn’t causing any damage?
Eh?

And therein lies the rub - the AGW crowd lit on CO2 like ducks on Junebugs as the SINGLE most nefarious gas our society produces, the single biggest thing we did that was causing the planet to heat up, without any actual scientifically verifiable evidence that there as any real basis for that assessment.

And therein lies why we evil conservative b@stards are against standing our economy on it’s ear through regulation to achieve AGW dreams.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It is POSSIBLE to eliminate carbon emissions .. please explain.

Did you mean reduce ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
As for Fuel Cell vehicles, is the hydrogen generated from electric ?
As for Fuel Cell or electric vehicles, is the electric generated from coal ?

Of all the electricity generated in the US, roughly 50% from coal, 19% from nuclear, 18% from natural gas, and hydro & wind 9%.

Could one say that half of all Fuel Cell or electric vehicles would be "coal powered" ??
At best, you could claim a 31% decrease in carbon output (100% less coal + gas).
And roughly every fifth vehicle would be nuclear powered.

But given the law of unintended consequences" moving automobiles onto the electrical power grid will only raise prices there and require more plants to cover the increased usage. Wind may work for some of this (experts believe this could eventually hit 20%), but to remain carbon free .. the rest (roughly 69%) would have to be nuclear.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I’m not sure I buy the AGW theory, but I still am left to ask "is there anything wrong with being nice to the planet and striving to keep it as natural and unpolluted as possible for us and future generations?"
What we really should do is make the planet as good for humans as possible. There is way too much pseudo-religious worship of "natural".

Keep in mind, there are tradeoffs, and holding to a "protect the environment from the mean people" view often leads to worse environmental outcomes. For example, many have learned the SSS philosophy from the Endangered Species Act . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Besides Rick, if you believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions, we both know you must think they’re damaging, otherwise, why are you worried about reducing them. Why worry about reducing something that isn’t causing any damage?
Rick doesn’t want to do anything that might cause harm.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Neo, they’re ignoring the laws of unintended consequences because they are unaware of them, or deliberately ignoring them (T. Boone Pickens).

For example I’m to believe that Natural Gas can now just be used whole hog to replace gasoline and neither the supply nor the price will be radically affected in the market as that shift happens (not withstanding the changes required in the vehicles or the distribution mechanisms).

I don’t feel comfortable that when they are forecasting the amount of gas we have available and how long that will last they have added in the forecast for the change in demand. Seems pretty straightforward to do so, but at least in Pickens’ case, I don’t trust they’re dealing from a straight deck.

Sort of like the trivial impact ethanol has had on food prices eh?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m still waiting for the scientific study that actually proves that the small increases in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are harmful in any way. Even AGW is not proven to be dangerous (some say disease and flooding would result; others say that more land would be available for farming and that icebergs melting would not bring waters levels up nearly as much as some think), let alone been proven.

Getting back to the topic brought up in this post, this sounds like a very interesting study, and one I am glad is being done. People are too quick to assume that science=truth. As a student of the sciences, I can say that statement is unequivocally false. Science takes our best knowledge of a subject and tries to apply it to the real world; sometimes, our understanding lacks information, so what appears true now seems like a quaint and outdated idea in just a few years. All a scientific consensus means is that many scientists believe a theory to be true, not that the theory is true. This study may not prove how the climate changes, but it may bring us closer to reality, whether it places doubt on AGW or not.
 
Written By: CR UVa
URL: http://TheRedStater.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, back at the Gore Ranch, Mr. (A)L (G)ore (W)arming suggests the kids ought to get out there and practice a little civil disobedience to prevent any more evil coal burning plants.
I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."
Hear hear Mr Gore! And I believe that those same state attorney generals should prosecute your lame @ss for your hyperventilated hysteria movie and, dare I say it, convincing the stock buying public that your company that just happens to sequester carbon, was needed to avert the non-existent crisis you’ve been hyping for the last couple years.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Joe,

Well, I’m not Ott Scerb, but as a conservative Christian Republican who voted for Reagan (twice), I appreciate the compliment. Just thought I’d add to the astroturfing that appeared early on in this thread.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
It always baffles me to come back here and see you still on this track. Aren’t you still denying that the earth is getting warmer at all? I thought I saw some arctic posts to that effect recently.

From another angle, have you ever posted on your explanation for how the ~5,000,000 scientists globally that believe in global warming have all been duped into believing the wrong thing? Are you going for "they’re all incompetent", or "they’re all conspiring with the environmentalists"?
(some say disease and flooding would result; others say that more land would be available for farming and that icebergs melting would not bring waters levels up nearly as much as some think), let alone been proven.
You should be able to do better than this with sheer common sense, dude. The polar ice caps have a known volume. Corresponding changes in sea levels are not theory, just calculation. And the biggest certain problem is neither of those, it’s the massive reorganization of fertile and infertile land and the resultant mass famine. You’ll live to see it.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
"They are judged on their history and they have a lot of bad history to overcome."

Such as establishing the EPA?


"For the record, I never said CO2 emissions were bad."

Right. But we should limit them, as long as we do not spend enough to actually do any good. And we should heavily invest in other unproven ’solution’.
We should spend a lot without spending a lot. Got it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Assume for once that AGW is a real threat. We need a conservative solution that lets people make their own investments in improving efficiency, because if we leave it to the government they will surely screw it up.

The conservative solution should be (in my opinion) "carbon" consumption taxation based upon the amount of AGW your consumption is responsible for. You pay for your own consumption and no one else’s. And as this will be crippling to the average consumer under todays high carbon use conditions, the state needs to allow tax relief from income taxes to pay for it.

I reckon a high consumption tax on AGW footprint in exchange for a cut in income taxation to a flat 10% would be worth it. I’d sure reduce my polluting and my tax bill.

Looker says:
Republicans (in theory at least, though lately, not so much) like smaller government.
And Democrats believe there’s pretty much no problem more government can’t solve.
The progressives plan is what we have, it is a failure. It is about placing controls on production and setting up governemt departments enforcing these controls. This is the same solution they offer for EVERYTHING - set up private companies as the black hat and a government intervention as the white hat, take money from the "villian" give it to the "saviour" (and pocket some of it on the way).

And Kyoto - cap-n-trade, emmission trading - has actually increased the rate at which AGW gas is produced globally. The progressive solution is (as expected, as progressive initiatives always have been) a total failure - that is killing the planet*. If we offer a workable conservative plan we can make it do almost anything, because it will save the world*.

Conservatives are meant to be about distrusting big government initiative and freeing people to make the right choices. Partly because it is the right thing to do and partly because progressive initatives are always epic failures. The conservative solution is to give people the liberty to make their own decisions with their own money.


* these terms are subject to AGW being a real threat, but for the purposes of proving that progressives are planet killing evil and conservatives are astoundingly nice good guys offering workable solutions let us assume it is.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
McQ, you might want to verify that Timothy Birdnow link .... it doesn’t go where you think it does. Anybody at work might want to avoid clicking on it!
 
Written By: Chris Michaels
URL: http://
I thought I saw some arctic posts to that effect recently.

Actually, there was one section that melted more this year, but overall there is a larger ice extent in the Arctic than this time last year.
Despite overall cooler summer temperatures, the 2008 minimum extent is only 390,000 square kilometers (150,000 square miles), or 9.4%, more than the record-setting 2007 minimum.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Pardon me much, but as much as I like to be certain about as many scientific facts as possible, and researching the GCR (galactic cosmic rays) influence on terrestrial climate, you can’t ride on the GCR horse alone and expect to use that as a panacea argument against AGW theory and its supporters.

Fact of the matter is that both emperically in an theory, it is known that CO2, methane, CFCs and water vapor are greenhouse gasses that trap heat in the lower troposphere, and that though burning of hydrocarbons, plus altering land use, humans are changing the quantities of these gases in the atmosphere. (How it does is described in ample detail on Wikipedia).

To claim that the climate changes are due to natural variability which happens to coincide perfectly with the coming of human industrial society is simply too much of wishful thinking.

On the other hand, that we conclude that there is a waming going on does not mean we have to hand the reins of political power to the soc|alist-statists, not at all. (But they of course want us to, don’t they?)
 
Written By: Peter Bjrn Perls
URL: http://titancity.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider