Jobs will only be lost if

Jobs will only be lost if the ecologically and economically unfriendly and suicidal practice of automation and so called "competition" continue, requiring ever increasing inputs of energy and resources to "stay competitive", which means the faster and faster introduction of corporate fascism and destruction of Earth.

Not only is this collection of executives "not democratic", but the system they represent and are forcing on humanity can not survive as democracies, therefore they don't even understand what democracy is about. Neither does Campbell, who's hunting for post politics directorships.

Then we come to our universities where the garbage and pollution causing system this gang and government represent is being taught as "good economics".

As long as we're stuck to the fraudulent GDP, growth and productivity figures there's no chance for any kind of improvement.

The banks and the stock and money markets won't permit it.

Ed Deak.

Well with all the business

Well with all the business minds their ideas will be anything but fair. It will be like these enviro fees that keep going up . Many of the items with these fees(taxes in reality) are used up and can not be returned anywhere.

head in the Saudi sand

Jim Sinclair says, “…cutting emissions requires that "everybody goes forward and nobody loses. If there be winners and losers in this debate then it can't work.”

If the science is correct and greenhouse gas production and the associated problems are the result of unchecked access to a temporary glut of cheap carbon “producing” energy; and that unchecked access has allowed the human population to swell way beyond the planets (energy) carrying capacity, then it follows that regardless of how we cut emissions there will be losers.

And wishful thinkers, like Sinclair, should disabuse themselves of the idea that legislation and technology are going to save the day. Even if some previously untapped, nonpolluting energy source is harnessed, building the required infrastructure will not happen fast enough.

Take off your rose colored glasses Mr. Sinclair. Climate change is not the issue. Whether changing weather is the result of human activity or not is irrelevant. When the energy demand exceeds the energy supply, some folks are going to lose … big time. That's when the real debate starts.

It will be interesting....

.... to see how they work their way around the population growth factor. The more people that come to the 'best place on the planet' the more total emissions are likely to go up in the province.

This glob & mire article "Dim prospects that 'energy efficient' will pay off: CIBC" illustrates another curve that can be thrown into the best laid plans.

Looks like the light is dawning

Even though most still think CO2 has something to do with weather/climate, people are beginning to see the edges of the scams which are being attempted.

Maybe after this coming winter, which is forecast to be the most severe in 15 years, people will start coming out of the media induced hypnosis. I just hope it comes in time before major economic damage is done.
http://www.nrsp.com/releases/release-07.11.26.html

http://www.nrsp.com/cbc%20climate%20watch.html
“The CBC occupies a unique position of trust. Not only is it the most substantial and broadly-based broadcast journalism organization in Canada, it is funded, through Parliament, by the people of Canada. The CBC therefore considers it a duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely.”

The CBC has broken this public trust. Canadians can no longer rely on the network “to provide consistent, high-quality information” when it comes to the most complex science humans have ever tackled – global climate science. The CBC can not even be trusted to follow their own ‘standards and practices’ manual in their coverage of this issue.

Instead, most CBC reporting of climate change science, either directly or through subliminal techniques, takes an activist role, promoting a point of view that is seriously at odds with many of the world’s leading experts. The network presents the causes of climate change as being largely ‘settled’ with only a handful of “deniers” at ‘the margins of the issue’ disagreeing with the politically correct position as promoted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This is a total misrepresentation of reality – there is an intense and growing debate in the climate science community about the causes of climate change. Yet the CBC virtually ignores this controversy through their choice of programme participants and in their selection of facts being presented."

FUD

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Prime weapons of the media campaigns to cloud most truth in reporting, not just climate issues but those of economics and security. I applaud both Ed and KWD for stating the problem with clarity and common sense. No matter the cause of global warming the human condition continues to deteriorate unchecked. That will include all efficiency developments as any savings made will be spent on propping up all economic indicators.

mopled: As a passionate advocate for truth in C02, what exactly is the plan by organizations like nrsp besides deny deny deny? Is this a group that supports continued depletion of energy supplies or do they have a vision for the future? If this group is only concerned with truth in science, then we don't solve the long term issue. My guess is that very few visionaries/scientists see what Ed and KWD are pointing to.

The seven deadly sins are a symptom of the disease that plagues our global society. Loss of biodiversity is another victim we ignore to our own peril. Simple science in math and biolgy states, continued growth in economics and human population is finite. Simple math shows that even at a modest 1.3% growth rate in global population, in 700 years we have 1 human for every M2 of land on earth. That's the problem with not understanding growth. That's the problem when you don't understand simple science as Ed has explained with transfer of costs for selfless, immediate and temporary wealth creation. Eventually we all lose.

Who will be first?

Who will be first as a nation to say we see the issue and we support real sustainability, if such a thing is still possible. Obviously we will not continue 1.3% population growth for the next 700 years, so when do we recognize that the growth period must end? What indicators are used to measure the long term health of our tenancy here on earth? Individuals are saying and doing enough for their part, but until the scales are tipped in that favour, no politician will be elected on a platform for the safe passage of future generations! That would require selflessness, vision and understanding of the issues to come. The real ones, not the chicken little climate change ones. Exceeding the carrying capcity of this planet comes disguised in many costumes. Habitat loss, desertification, rising sea levels, pollution of land sea and air, fisheries in decline, war, pestilence, famine....
Whoa, this could be worse than I thought... Thankfully there's beer and sailing!

So, who is paying the NRSP

So, who is paying the NRSP and where did they come from all of a sudden ? The Fraser Inst?

Do they really believe that the incredible amounts of pollution around the world in the name of "growth" has no effects, and the whole mess is some kind of a natural phenomenon, or invented by the enviro-terrorists to stop globalized wealth creation ?

Reminds me of the early Green Revolution, when the professors at Cambridge assured us that the poisons we were putting on the fruit trees, like arsenic, lead, tar oils, nicotine, DDT, etc. etc. without any protection, with our skin and clothing soaked with them for months, were completely harmless.

Millions have been poisoned, including me,paralyzed for months with heavy metal poisoning 50 years later, and a large percentage who died and are still dying with the vilest conglomeration of cancers, before the world woke up to the scientists' fraud.

And why didn't children and only a very small percentage of people have cancers 50- 60 years ago? Where did all these sicknesses come from?

I have a German study, sent to me by a Swedish professor in the early 90s, of
2 1/2 pages of "volatile substances in mothers' milk". Where did they come from and the 30 -40 chemicals in people's blood today, here in Canada?

Of the 200,000 chemicals in use today, only about 5-6 % have been completely tested on their effects on humans. What does the NRSP and the Fraser Inst. think, their effects are?

Ed Deak.

I'd advise anyone who thinks this board

I'd advise anyone who thinks this board is going to be in favour of anything that doesn't play into the hands of business and Gordon Campbell to spend a little time researching the companies these characters work for and run.

There isn't even a representative from BCHydro on the board...and yet there is from Fortis (a Newfoundland company that specializes in investments in unregulated power for God's sake - have a look at their reputation in the Caribbean).

Andrew Weaver from UVic makes sense but he'll have tough sledding against the rest of these characters.

More later.

And not exactly representative...

of anything other than the status quo. Are we expected to believe that business leaders know best? Aren't they the ones whose policies over the last decades have pushed us into this mess?
At worst there should be a 50/50 representation on the panel, split between businessmen/labour and scientists/environmentalists. Business continues to fight any attempts to address this or any other environmental issue. Their solution to regulation (the only thing that has been proven to work in terms of policies that really do what they're supposed to- protect the environment) is to ship their industries over seas to countries where they can pollute as they like.
This panel setting environmental policies is like Pickton judging himself...

Big Bucks

Just what is all this nonsense going to cost us anyway? To see how An Inconvenient
Truth fared in Britain, check out:
http://telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/display --Oct.17/2007 High Court Judge Michael Burton attached list of 9 errors in film which must be given to teachers before it could be shown in British schools.
Is there some brain washing going on here?
Today we are being told the snow and the rainstorm are due to global warming. How come I remember Vancouver schools being closed due to snow when I was a kid?

Who are they G.West?

Maybe we could start by identifying these folks and their political affiliations. That might better explain who they are. Jeff Burghardt is the government appointee on the Northern Health Authority. A long-time liberal he was the pro liberal commentator from Prince Rupert on the CBC's Bear Pit.

Who Pays

Perhaps this could be an impetus to get CEO's salaries back in line. They are all extremely over-paid," earning" on average 40 times that of an average worker. Let's roll that back to 10 times, and put the rest into climate issues.
These extravagant pukes are consuming at unsustainable rates to satisfy their egos, selfishness and greed. Time for them to pay for the mess they have created.

Yep let's do that...

I think we'll find many of the corporate honchos on this 'advisory' board are involved in businesses that stand to MAKE money from their attachment to the 'green' idea...how will we split up the list?

Well, Labour has been Invited...

From publiceyeonline November 20:

"British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union president George Heyman says the Campbell administration's climate action cabinet committee hasn't yet met with any representatives from the labour movement - this, despite having already heard at least "177 presentations from scientists, public servants, environmental organizations, academics and industry sectors."[/b]

From publiceyeonline a week later on November 28:

"But yesterday Minister Penner revealed he's "invited the B.C. Federation of Labour to come see us sometime and make a presentation to the climate change committee of cabinet."

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/002749.html#comments

Yes but...

not to sit at the table. Hey labour can make a presentation to the appointed group like every other individual. Musn't recognize them uppity labour folks.

Bobby Peru, you're on the right track

but your comment that it's doubtful that BC alone could have an effect on global warming is among the world's most fantastic understatements.

Besides being the biggest hoax since 30 million young men believed that the whims of European Royalty was worth dying for in a totally unnecessary war of attrition--mostly in muddy trenches--there is absolutely zero chance that anything that BC does could have any effect on global temperatures.

Incidentally, the first world war was sleazed into existence by the global banking syndicates for no good reason whatsoever besides their demonic gluttony.

The trillions of dollars that working people will be paying for the swarming hoax is only exceeded by the fakery involved in perpetrating the first and second world wars.

In fact, Bobby, if all of Canada completely disappeared from the face of the earth and took its contribution to C02 emissions with it, there would be no significant change in global temperatures.

Our contribution is that small.

The fact that a sincere guy like Bobby doesn't understand this only provides ample evidence of the degree of brainwashing that has been accomplished by the global swarming cabal.

And so I'll explain it to you guys one more time:
Carbon dioxide cannot absorb enough rebounding infrared radiation to have any effect whatsoever on the temperature of the atmosphere.

The temperature differentiation in the presence of C02 has been interpreted backwards.

A rise in atmospheric C02 retention FOLLOWS a rise in global temperatures; it does not come before it. So as the atmosphere heats up...guess what...it retains more CO2. In fact the epiphenomenal circumstance of mistakenly correlated concurrence is the same method by which the hoaxsters pretend that Aids is caused by the presence of a harmless retrovirus.

There's the rub. It's all completely fake science, and everybody except G.West knows it.

The brainwashing on global swarming is so entrenched that if a new ice-age encompassed Miami in the next few years, the Suzukians and Gorists would still pretend that global warming was taking place.

Now here's a confession by a former

global swarming gravy train rider.

Go here: http://mises.org/story/2571

Skywalker/G. West

The guy from Fortis respresents the hydroelectric industry in the Kootenays. This firm bought out West Kootenay Power & Light which built the dams on the Kootenay River near Nelson and which used to be a source of cheap power for the area. See who else we can identify? Perhaps someone can ask Mike Morton (Premier's mouth) for the bios of these folk.

monty, it's exceptionally good to know

that you've joined the group of us who know that G.West has many identities here at Tyee. Not only the Skywalker guy, as you figured out, but also the Sharing Is Good personage; the Frank person; the Booker person; the ov person, the James Burns person etc.

These "people" are all G.West.

I think this is very relevant to the subject at hand and all articles after which G.West comments under all of these phony names.

Here's the real story monty

http://thetyee.ca/Views/Teacherdiaries/2007/02/27/BoyTrouble/

Though I can't imagine why you'd be interested...the only person here who's constantly into conspiracy theory and disinformation is Truman Green.

I'm very proud of everything I've written as G West and (for one year) Alcibiades...but never anything else....the fact of the matter is that it upsets him that he and mopled, for the most part, are the only regulars here who are into climate change denial; 9/11 conspiracy theory and AIDS denial...

Nevertheless, they keep trying.

Climate Action Team

Given a choice between real expertise on climate issues, however one construes that, and politically correct representation, give me expertise every day of the week. That being said, however, I find it strains credulity to imagine that no one in the labour movement has any concept of what climate change, including its potential implications for workers, is all about. As usual with the Campbell government, ideology has reared its ugly head. Perhaps the assumption is that if someone has to really feel the pain from policy changes, the working class makes a good scapegoat.

Here's the best suggestion yet!

Let policy follow science: Tie a carbon tax to actual warming
The temperature of the troposphere above the tropics has changed little.
By Ross McKitrick
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1203/p09s02-coop.html

Guelph, Canada - Climate change is one of the most complex topics in science. New insights arise every month. Key discoveries are anticipated in the next few years. Yet politicians seem to think we've learned everything there is to know about the climate. And they keep designing static policy plans based on that assumption.

We have seen the failure of this approach with the Kyoto Protocol. So as world leaders meet in Bali, Indonesia, this week to discuss a replacement treaty, they should keep this simple principle in mind: Good climate policy must be dynamic, not static, and this requires incorporating a learning process.

Politicians like long-term commitments because they can push costs into the future. But long-term commitments are foolish when you are still awaiting key information about the nature of the problem.

For instance, scientists from nine countriesare conducting experiments in Switzerland to test the influence of the sun's magnetic field on our climate. There is evidence that the constant shower of cosmic rays from space enhances cloud formation. The sun's magnetic field partly shields the Earth from cosmic rays. Research suggests that the sun's magnetic field has strengthened since 1900, weakening the cosmic-ray flow and reducing average cloud cover – which allows temperatures to rise. The experiments could show that the sun, not greenhouse gases, explains most global warming. Results are expected as early as 2010.

Or consider the tropical troposphere, the vast atmospheric region centered about 10 miles above the earth, ringing the equator. Climate models project that, if carbon emissions cause warming, the strongest effect will be up there. But both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) have found no significant warming there. A 2006 CCSP report called this a "potentially serious inconsistency" and pointed out that the models with the best fit to the data show low amounts of greenhouse warming. If warming in the tropical troposphere is not soon observed, it will convincingly refute the standard greenhouse warming model.

The bottom line is that, over the next few years, we will acquire new information that might overturn current beliefs about greenhouse warming. To lock into a policy path that ignores future information makes no sense.

pg 2

Policymakers should implement a dynamic strategy that ties the stringency of emissions controls to actual greenhouse warming. The best way to do this would be to base a revenue-neutral carbon emissions fee on the mean temperature of the tropical troposphere. The formula I have proposed (ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com) would start low, at about $5 per ton of carbon, similar to what most economists have proposed.

My "T3" formula – short for Temperature of the Tropical Troposphere – guarantees that, if carbon emissions do not cause global warming, the charge will not go up. But if they do cause warming as the IPCC projects, the emissions tax will start rising by between $4 and $24 per ton per decade. The upper-end corresponds to a very aggressive emissions-control scheme. Because the emissions fee would depend on actual warming, the stringency of the policy would depend on the actual, observed severity of the problem.

Some people have responded to my T3 idea with the concern that essential increases in the carbon fee might be delayed due to lags in the climate system. But the lags are associated with oceanic responses. According to models, the tropical troposphere responds relatively quickly to carbon emissions. And even if there is a short delay, it is better to learn with a lag than not to learn at all, which is the problem with all other policy plans.

Another advantage of the T3 tax is that it would create a market for accurate climate forecasting. Someone building a billion-dollar power plant would want an objective estimate of the likely carbon emissions price five or 10 years out. Competition would create strong incentives to get the science right. The T3 rule would create market incentives for climate modelers to eliminate sources of exaggeration in their models. And investors would search out the best forecasts to guide their current planning, thereby factoring long-term greenhouse warming changes into today's investment decisions.

Nor would we need politicians to argue about how weak or strong the long-term policy should be – the atmosphere would decide. If the policy turns out to be too weak to force emission reductions, it would indicate that the climate is not sensitive to emissions.

Climate policy needs to shift from static to dynamic thinking. This requires tying policy to actual greenhouse warming. Anything else is like taking a shot in the dark.

Ross McKitrick is an associate professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

(and who with Steven McIntyre demolished Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph which showed CO2 going off the chart. It was an artifact of improper modeling and too little knowledge of statistical methods)

Focus: Where is the List of major pollution sources.

Can not find the 10 most pressing pollution sources..

Looking  for  the  short  list  of  Major Pollutors. Like..

[1]  Coal  liquifaction  Africa

[2]  Coal-gen  plants  worldwide.  Retrofit  carbon  entrapment?

[?]  Oil  refining .

[?]  Aluminium  smelting..  Kitimat?

[?]  Petro-chemical  effluents.

[?]  Jet  transport exhausts

[?]  Automotive  oil  and  gas  exhausts   Evs  &  compressed air vechls.

[?] Alberta Oil Sands.

[?]  Oceanic  oil  spills.   ExxonMobile,  Black sea

[?]  Ocean  dumping  and bilge clearing

In what  order  do  these  belong,   regardless  of  costs  of  correction?

Where  is  Sierra*s  list?
Where is  Al  Gore*s  list?
Where  is  Dr.  Suzuki*s  list? 
Where  is  the  Greenpeace list?
 
TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

I  think worldwide  Coal-Gen  retrofit  would help  most.  Never  mentioned!   Canadian  manufacturing  opportunity? = TG

I had a good laugh, at TTT, Mopled. You're

right, of course. Why not tie the tax to an actual proven increase in global temperatures so the hoaxters won't be able to do their trillions in global swarming business unless they can show that the temperatures have actully increased due to an increase of C02 into the earth's hydrologic, chaotic climate patterns.

The only serious 'greenhouse' gas is, of course, water vapour. C02 pollutes nothing except the minds of the global swarmers.

C02 also increases the earth's vegetation and is more like a plant food than a pollutant. (And provides good fake fog for rock bands).

Real pollutants are those particles in the atmosphere produced by industry--diesel fuel particles, which affect respiration, for instance--which the global swarmers have convinced just about everyone to forget about.

Incidentally, Harper's acting so weird about global swarming because he secretly knows it's all a pile of crap. (He used to say just that before he was elected PM). Of course, to admit it would be political suicide considering the bizarre brainwashing that has been accomplished by the swarmers. Harper's bizarre alright. (Sorry Lewis Lapham), but I give him kudos, despite his Machievellian pretenses, for trying to destroy the huge pathetic swarming fakery by insisting, rightly, that if the rest of the big polluters don't play, then we're not playing either, thereby wrecking the entire, stupid swarming conspiracy.

mopled and Truman

mopled,

I think you mean before any economic damage is done right mopled? Because for all your droning I have yet to hear how we've spent the trillions you're so concerned about.

Truman,

Are you trying to be funny TG? Because that was a good one. Yes, Bobby is on the same ideological track as Michael Walker. Interesting that you'd agree with him.

Wrong, most did not die in muddy trenches, you've been watching too much BlackAdder. The numbers of dead on fronts other than the heavily dug in western front were very high and French and German losses in 1914 before the major trench systems were dug were also very high.

That's the conspiracy minded point of view I guess. Most would say its because the Archduke was shot and his killer was tied to a Serbian group. From thereon alliances and nationalism took over. As for banking, in fact many thought war would never occur again because of how connected banking had made different countries economies.

Trillions that have never been spent of course. You guys on the climate Right tend to forget that.

(I'll ignore the reference to "fakery" leading to WW2 on the assumption you were just being grandiose)

Our contribution is that small.

As is our contribution to all forms of pollution, so let's put the lead back in our gasoline, line the arctic with fish farms and pour our sludge into the the rivers. Because in the global scheme of things it doesn't matter.

And if the world was hit by increasing droughts and melting glaciers you'd continue to claim it was just the natural cycle at work.

Economic effects

The economic effects of addressing climate change will be, over the rest of this century, little more than a small reduction in the average rate of growth of the economy of the world as a whole.

The costs of doing nothing are incalculable.

G

Has anyone added up the cost of feeding the world's people over 100 years? The amount is huge, easily in the "trillions".

Perhaps we should stop spending money on food production so our economy will grow?

monty

The great GWest conspiracy in a nutshell is that anyone who disagrees with Truman and his thousand-and-one conspiracies is the same person. Go ahead, disagree with him and in future discussions he'll call you GWest too.

Its fun in a "I am Spartacus" way.

Enjoy

Old joke

A guy goes to see a shrink.
Shrink says," Mr. West, why are you banging that turkey."
West says," Because it keeps the elephants away."
Shrink says, "Mr. West, I don't see any elephants"
West says, "See, it works", as he continues to bang the turkey.

Global Warming’s Trillion-Dollar Turkey
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071004.html
A trillion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to — at least when it comes to global warming, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming bill — the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. — would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.

This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill’s impact on climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we’d get for our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it.

For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.

If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm — a whopping reduction of 23 ppm.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html
The EPA also estimated that if all countries — including China, India, Brazil and other developing nations — curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 491 ppm in 2095, including the above-mentioned 23 ppm reduction from the implementation of the Bingaman-Specter bill.

So it appears that no matter how you slice it, Bingaman-Specter is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of global temperature? After all, we are talking about global warming.

Although the EPA didn’t pursue its analysis that far, figuring out the implications are readily doable using the assumptions and formulas of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under the no-action scenario (718-to-695 ppm), the IPCC formulas indicate that the multitrillion-dollar Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by 0.13 degrees Celsius.

Under the maximum regulation scenario (514-to-491 ppm), Bingaman-Specter might reduce average global temperature by 0.18 degrees Celsius. Actual temperature reductions are likely to be less since these estimates rely on the IPCC’s alarmist-friendly assumptions and formulas.

The question, then, becomes this: Is it really worth trillions of taxpayer dollars over 90 years to perhaps reduce global temperatures by 0.13-0.18 degrees Celsius? If you can’t answer that question, consider this.

consider this.

Under the no-action scenario, average global temperature might be 1.2 degrees Celsius higher in 2095 than it is today, once again using conservative IPCC assumptions and formulas. Under the maximum-regulation scenario, average global temperature might be 1.03 degrees Celsius higher than today. (For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.)

So what’s the difference in mean global temperature between the no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario? Could it be a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade? Is that what global warming hysteria is all about?

The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature outcome. But the pain of Bingaman-Specter doesn’t stop with trillions of taxpayer dollars. The heart of the Bingaman-Specter bill is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which CO2 emission limits (caps) would be decreed and certain businesses and other special interest group emitters (such as farmers and states) would be given permits to emit CO2.

Emitters that have extra permits could sell them in the open market to emitters that weren’t lucky enough to get free permits and that need permits. Extra permits, as such, are essentially free money.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade scheme — generally speaking, conniving environmentalists who want to appear to be business-friendly and special interest emitters who want to feed at the taxpayer trough — portray it as a "market-based" approach to addressing global warming concerns.

Not only is cap-and-trade not "market-based," highly respected economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer and Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, say cap-and-trade will cause significant economic harm.

In a recent paper sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education Institute, a think tank with which I am affiliated, Laffer said that a cap-and-trade scheme would act as a constraint on the energy supply — much like the 1970s-era Arab oil embargoes and other energy crises. He estimates that cap-and-trade would shrink the U.S. economy by 5.2 percent and reduce family income by $10,800 by 2020.

So the Bingaman-Specter bill not only would waste taxpayer money, but it would harm economic growth and reduce family income — all without affecting global temperature in any sort of meaningful or even detectable way.

Although the EPA acknowledged, "Since the variation in cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions are small under [Bingaman-Specter], the variation in the resulting CO2 concentrations are small," this only hints at the bill’s futility.

There can be little doubt as to why the EPA failed to carry through the ultimate implications of the 23 ppm impact of Bingaman-Specter. The agency would have "officially" exposed the bill and global warming alarmism as utterly absurd.

mopled

I thought you hate the IPCC and say everything they put out is a pack of lies? Now you're using their data?

Fact is mopled, trillions haven't been spent and there are no concrete plans to do so.

If that doesn't qualify as "tilting at windmills" then I don't know what does.

On the other hand, if trillions could fix the problem, and assuming you believe there is a problem, which I know you don't, would you support the spending of those trillions?

I'm not using it

Come on Frank. That's an absolutely sophomoric trick. The story is about the US EPA reviewing the consequences of one of at least three bills being considered in the US. THEY used the IPCC data.

The point being that trillions couldn't fix the "problem" even if it weren't a totally imaginary "problem".

It turns out that the data used by the IPCC came from a corrupt data set.

Quantifying the Influence of Surface Processes and Inhomogeneities On Global Climate Data

By Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels

In a new article just published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, Pat Michaels and I have concluded that the manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the global temperature graph showing warming is an exaggeration, at least in the past few decades. Along the way I have also found that the UN agency promoting the global temperature graph has made false claims about the quality of their data. The graph comes from data collected in weather stations around the world. Other graphs come from weather satellites and from networks of weather balloons that monitor layers of the atmosphere. These other graphs didn’t show as much warming as the weather station data, even though they measure at heights where there is supposed to be even more greenhouse gas-induced warming than at the surface. The discrepancy is especially clear in the tropics.

The surface-measured data has many well-known problems. Over the post-war era, equipment has changed, station sites have been moved, and the time of day at which the data are collected has changed. Many long-term weather records come from in or near cities, which have gotten warmer as they grow. Many poor countries have sparse weather station records, and few resources to ensure data quality. Fewer than one-third of the weather stations operating in the 1970s remain in operation. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, more than half the world’s weather stations were closed in a four year span, which means that we can’t really compare today’s average to that from the 1980s. Read a background summary here and a technical paper published in the JGR December 2007 here.

McKitrick is an Associate Professor at the University of Guelph. Michaels contributed to this research while a member of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and while a visiting lecturer at Virginia Tech. He is now with the Cato Institute (Icecap)

mopled

But where's the smoking gun? You're still so sure its all a hoax perpetrated by of all things, the nuclear industry, yet you have no evidence of such.

A conspiracy by the nuclear industry to fund most of the world's scientists to support something that will make the world want to switch to nuclear power makes no sense.

After all, its you that claims the science is easy to disprove. So if you can deduce that how come the world's scientists and nuclear industry while meeting in their smoke-filled rooms couldn't see this lack of belief coming and this global conspiracy blowing up in their faces?

Ross McKitrick - "environmental economist"

CV:

BA (Hons) Economics, Queen's, 1988
- MA Economics, UBC, 1990
- PhD Economics, UBC, 1996
- Assistant Professor, University of Guelph, July 1996 - June 2001
- Associate Professor, University of Guelph, July 2001 - present
- Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Vancouver B.C.

You hafta love that last item.

And this little piece about Pat Michaels is kinda interesting too.

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-refuses-court-request-to-disclose-funding-sources

Wonder why he's so bashful about his funding.

How about the funding for

THE BIG GREEN MACHINE
Sunoco (Alberta Tar Sands) funds Pew Charitable Trusts, which fund the Pew Climate Center and the Tides Foundation which funds Tides Canada which funds the D.Suzuki Foundation which even has the Rockefeller henchman and global warming inventor (at the Stockholm Conference in 71) Maurice Strong on its B of D. That's only one of the money trails.

There is no right or left in this one. The money trail says it all...

Are you seriously offering realclimate and desmogblog as sources of unbiased information? Realclimate was started to try to rescue Michael Mann after Ross McKitrick helped blow his "Hockey Stick" graph to smithereens with Steve McIntye.
Canadian heros unrecognized in their own country for having shown that the only piece of evidence warmists had was a product of cooking the data. Desmogblog is reporter Ross Gelbspan who awarded himself a Pulitzer on his books dust jacket.
Humppph!
Want a nuclear connection? ...Lawrence Livermore Labs own Ben Santer.
"The New York Times reports today that Dr. Benjamin Santer, atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, has been awarded a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant of $270,000 for research supporting the finding that human activity contributes to global warming.

We recall that earlier MacArthur "genius" grants have gone to Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, both noteworthy for forecasts of famines, cancer epidemics, and other population disasters that were somewhat wide of the mark.

Dr. Santer breaks new ground by having admitted to altering Chapter 8 of the most recent IPCC report, deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate. According to the journal Nature, the changes were made to make the report conform to the IPCC Policymakers Summary, a political document. Nature editors said that the U.S. State Department had urged the head of the UN science advisory group to prevail upon chapter authors to make such changes.

Santer also edited a crucial graph in Chapter 8 (Fig. 8.10) from his original published version, leading readers to believe that human influence is present and increasing with time, and selected data for Figure 8.7 (discovered by climatologist Prof. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia) to suggest that aerosols could account for the discrepancy between calculated and observed temperature trends."

Now you know why it was important for Gelbspan to attempt to discredit Prof. Michaels.

mopled

So all the scientists get $270,000 to push a hoax? Why doesn't your side (government and industry) just offer them $275,000? If they're doing it for the money they'll all switch sides immediately won't they?

That's so nice mopled

July 28, 2006
Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, July 27 — Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to one of the few remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad consensus that fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming.

The critic, Patrick J. Michaels, is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and Virginia’s state climatologist.

Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in Sedalia, Colo., has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to contribute to Dr. Michaels next year.

“We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,” Mr. Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to undertake a counterattack on “alarmist” scientists and specifically Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” which lays much of the blame for global warming on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

Mr. Lewandowski and Dr. Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin, have openly acknowledged the donations and say they see no problem. But some environmental advocates say the effort clearly poses a conflict of interest.

[Part 2 to follow]

Part 2 -

“This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of the Washington advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

Others, however, view it as the type of lobbying that goes along with many divisive issues. One environmental scientist, Donald Kennedy, former president of Stanford University and current editor in chief of the journal Science, said skeptics like Dr. Michaels were lobbyists more than researchers.

“I don’t think it’s unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical,” Dr. Kennedy said.

Dr. Michaels is best known for his newspaper opinion columns and books, including “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media.” He also writes research articles published in scientific journals.

He has been quoted by major newspapers more than 150 times in the last two years, according to a LexisNexis database search. He and Mr. Lewandowski say that their side of global warming is not being heard and that the donations resulted from a speech Dr. Michaels gave to the Western Business Roundtable last fall.

Dr. Michaels said the money would help pay his staff.

“Last I heard, anybody can ask a scientific question,” he said.

* * * * *
Pretty impressive stuff all right!

Bolding is mine!

Looks to me like, in this case, the COAL BURNING UTILITIES AND THE CATO INSTITUTE PAY....what a surprise!

Costs of addressing climate change

Frank - seems to me I heard and/or read that the best estimates, aggregated over the whole world, of each and every country addressing climate change in such a way as to meet Kyoto and extend that commitment into the future (till 2100 in the example they were using) would cost a reduction of 0.012 of the 'increase' on average of global GDP averaged over the whole of the world's measurable economic activity.

Obviously some countries, for some fraction of the next 92 years would be hit harder than that but, in the end, cost is hardly a reason for doing nothing...in fact, quite the contrary.

Actually there is a prize offered

CHALLENGE
$125,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:
UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

If that keeps up

The coal burning cato institute denial lobby is going to have to start shelling out more cash for shills like McKitrick and Michaels.

These guys are economists not scientists and they certainly have a nose for some easy cash. They might have a little difficulty marshalling the 'scientific proof' though.

Heavenly days

MrKitrick was on the IPCC. Economists deal with statistics and statistical models all the time...that's why he was able to see how Michael Mann manipulated things to get the Hockey Stick.
You either don't know what your talking about or you are grasping at straws. Actually, it's probably both.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=224

Also on the Fraser Institute

Ecoomists get around - and they're not scientists in my opinion.
Bye mopled

Waste of time

mopled was asked very simple questions above and ignores them. He cannot post anything without cutting and pasting the latest news from denial.com. When was the last time you actually used your own mind? Try answering the simple questions posed above. Otherwise you are on permanent ignore. I can't figure out if mopled is an actual adult who has just learned the wonders of a computor or a child who has snuck into the home computor to pose as an adult. Now that you've mastered the cut/paste function, perhaps you should go back to your coloring book. Please pass mopled the crayons...

Same goes for Truman Green who is probably posting as mopled. I implore you both one last time, please go outside and discover nature. With an appreciation for the natural world you'll find an inner peace or a connection that is missing. You see we are still animals. We need clean air, clean food and clean water to survive. Of course all of this is lost on those that think life started with the 20th century. No wonder the serious minds out there are so skeptical about human/society's survival with the likes of you two. Combined with apathy you're a deadly combination.

Club, I agree

of course we need clean air water and food, but as none of you seem to get, CO2 has nothing to do with pollution. It does have to do with food though. Higher levels of CO2 in the air make it easier for plants to grow by manufacturing carbohydrate.

Truman and I are very different people who happen to agree on certain things.

Give me a specific question you would like answered.

I cut and paste authoritative sources otherwise we get into a did/didn't kind of merry-go-round. You don't like it because the practice often gives you no room for denial of the evidence. Your comment was less about my my writing abilities than it was about your own frustration.

As for taking money from coal companies...well since CO2 isn't a problem, why shouldn't Michaels have taken funding from a coal company since they are being threatened by a totally false paradigm? I have concerns about mining practices and other emissions from coal burning, but CO2 is harmless and is being scapegoated for the very simple reason that nuclear plants don't generate it.

You have all conveniently ignored the source of the money from which the big foundations get their money and the lengths gone to to try to disguise it. Tides Foundation is a case in point. It is a foundation which derives its funding from other foundations.....how devious is that?
It then Funds Tides Canada which then funds a bunch of others. Quite a lengthy string leading back to... oil money. http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/225

Last time... God Damn it....!

Quit lumping us all together fer chrissakes... I've said before and will one last time, I don't care what's causing global warming. I have serious doubts that CO2 is the main culprit, as I believe that the degrdation of earths natural systems have been compromised. It could have as much to do with deforestation or damning of rivers or loss of plankton. The point is NOBODY knows for sure. NOBODY. Not you, not Truman. So if you can handle debate on an individual basis instead of your lumping all desenters together then scroll back and answer ED's and my questions. Otherwise FO.

OK, but why would

a warming of .6 degrees imply "that the degrdation of earths natural systems have been compromised." unless one viewed everything through a filter?

I'm not a member of the NRSP, so I can't answer for them, but
"NRSP takes on bias and misrepresentation in the climate debate."
would seem to be the job they have assigned themselves. As far as I can tell they are not taking on solving all the problems of the world, just trying to keep corruption from totally taking over climate studies.

I think it interesting that you choose to go off in high dudgeon about nothing and ignore the very real evidence that the Big Green Machine is a product of the same forces producing the "degrdation of earths natural systems."

BGM?

Jesus H Christ mopled, WTF are you talking about? Humans are altering the natural systems and climate is one of them, but it is likely the least serious of all the shit coming down the pipe in the next half century.

Answer one question for me....

The human population has doubled 4 times in the last 375 years. We achieved ! billion in 1835 and we've added 5.5 billion more since. The doubling times coming faster! Question: What will 12- 14 billion humans eat if we stay the present course?

The argument is whether

CO2 is responsible for Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change.

Nothing else.

What are you talking about....and is it relevant to the carbon taxes we will be charged....if they think thy can get away with it?

BTW, North America and Europe have shown that education, economic security and birth control have contributed to reductions in reproductive rates. So getting rid of poverty by distributing the wealth from natural resources extraction to the people who live in the countries the resources are extracted from, might be more to the point.

You blame the victim. We mere mortals don't make the decisions to rape the Earth....that's done in boardrooms across the world.

Now you're geting some where!

And as Frank has said over and over, not one cent has yet been spent on this CO2 sham...

Unless we start protesting

we may not be able to keep it that way.

With all due respect to Frank, just saying they haven't taxed us yet doesn't mean much in the light of their stated intentions to do so. They just haven't quite settled on how and how much.

Relevance

Is it relevant that half our tax money goes to the military? Is it relevant that wages continue to drop as share prices rise? Is it relevant we throw away 99 % of everything we buy within 6 months? Get it?

All things are connected, that means it's pointless to debate your narrow focus of anthropogenic CO2. Then you, YOU, bring in the tax equation, you ninny. So you're not even playing by your own rules. If you want a strict debate on GW then go to a science blog, or over to Trumans house where you can compare pocket protectors and drink diet Dr. Pepper all day long...

Dr Evil's link...

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

It sums up what we're talking about.

Oh, my!

May I remind you of the subject.

"Climate Fix:Who Plans? Who Plays?"

And if the climate isn't broken....what are we paying anything to anybody for?

CO2 is the whole bleeding argument for AGW/CC.

It's WRONG!

You, it would seem, would rather call me and Truman names. As we all know, that is usually a sign one's argument is bankrupt.

Your vituperation is strange, given that you say you aren't even convinced of the CO2 hypothesis.

Well, Excuse my Vituperations!

I'm sure I could find a few examples of your own versions you like to use when rebutting Frank or G West. TG the same, as we deniers of denial are of course idiots and such. Good luck with your fight against CO2 conspiracies. I just think you might beter your chances if you broadened your horizons a bit. What exactly is causing GW/CC? I guess it must be the sun and our orbit and just the natural way the earth cycles. Or the earth's ecology is misunderstood. Perhaps we do actually need clean, and free flowing waters from all the worlds rivers into all the worlds oceans. Maybe we shouldn't have buried 4 billion tonnes of trash per day and incinerated the rest!

You want to stop the world from making this big mistake on CO2 regulations because it will cost money? That's what the global economy is all about! That's the problem. Consummerism as a life style. Everyone's focus should be on that. The transition From Growth to sustainability. I hope that you are on that wagon to. Safe passage, watch yer top knot...

No kidding!

Pot calling I think they call it.

B.I.T.H.

...boot in the head...

If I may borrow a line from my maritime freinds.

What an incredible obscurantist rant

that was my dear.

The topic is our being taxed for producing CO2 and my point being the lack of evidence that our CO2 production is harmful in any way.

You do seem to insist on bringing up all kinds of things extraneous to the argument. It is most disconcerting!

I do think it absolutely adorable Club, that GW has become your "Amen Charlie". How darling.

Oh Baby!

Well mopled, I didn't know you had a frisky side. Perhaps you and I and "Amen Charlie" should get together and explore this passion a little further...

You don't play rubgy, by any chance do you? No, I didn't think so. Too bad. How about... hockey?

Sorry, I'm not into manly sport

I prefer to spend my time embroidering my collection of pocket protectors.

And while we are all busy measuring our carbon footprints, weather warfare continues.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561
"Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’. This mandate includes environmental warfare. ‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists. ‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."

Good one!

Perhaps then you'd care to join our weekly quilting bees on Thursday's!?

I wouldn't worry too much about the climatic warfare, we're already "kicking butt" with our current assault on nature. Watch for the Dr Strangelove exit strategy campaign. We must not allow a mineshaft gap...

Not to worry?

I just love how you prefer to ignore real threats from an out of control military.

Here is another condemnation of IPCC methods from an insider.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20071205.!15

"If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world's poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted."

Which should give the Club of Rome satisfaction, but wait...

"If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world's carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.

As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCC's laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now - for the third time in three decades - failing to speak up for those who are about to die."

Many real threats exist

...and it will never cease to amaze me that the public doesn't see consummerism as public enemy # 1. Oh and stop putting words in my mouth, besides your lack of debating skills this is your most annoying habit...

???? Just because I don't acknowlege your cut and paste article doesn't imply anything. [OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -EDITOR.]

Meds

If you are seriously dellusional and focused only on the CO2/Climate warfare threat, and that it keeps you from seeing any other real life scenarios then there is medication for this.

Take it easy Captain Climate-man.

clubofrome and mopled...

...please stop with the personal digs.

Thanks,

Geoff.

You are too adorable

How you manage to not notice the topic of this thread is marvelous.

Yes, I am focused on blowing open a scam before they can extract one cent from the gullible, science challenged public.

I wish I could cut and paste the map at the site below showing the locations of severely compromised surface temperature recording stations, or the pie chart showing that only 4% of the 460 stations examined so far are up to snuff.

This goes a long way in explaining why the satelite data shows little temperature change in the last 40 years and the surface stations do.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/ushcn-national-weather-station-quality-plot/

Kangeroo Court adjourned.

Lots of material on this thread now to point to when an argument is once again put forth that climate war and CO2 reduction are the big threats to our wallets and the environment. Good luck next time you step into the arena, as I intend to use some of your examples of seriously flawed logic. Unless Geoff here decides to save you from further embarrasment by wiping out the entire thread...

And thats all I have to say about that.

Well, I just compared the

Best Comments with All Comments....now I understand the function of the supposed choice.

It is an interestingly sly kind of censorship.

Oh, Truman, did you notice this? I hadn't paid too much attention, but this one is just too much.