Posted by Tina
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
Twin soldiers are being sent forth in our government's war on business that together may finally bring death and destruction to all remaining "hopes" for economic recovery...as if the sputtering faltering "recovery" needed much of a push anyway. What exactly is our government up to this time? Passage of John Kerry's cap and trade bill.
Conniving politics are behind the planning and plotting of this effort from the progressive green war room of the EPA to the offices of the generals in Congress. Still licking their wounds from the health care fight they regroup to launch their EPA/cap and trade salvo. They are determined that this time they will not be denied!
Who will be the innocent victims of this attack on business? Who will be the victims, the collateral damage that is necessary for the good of the planet? It will be the American people.
" This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson
Tonight from the Wall Street Journal:
The EPA has now formally made an "endangerment finding" on CO2, which will impose the command-and-control regulations of the Clean Air Act across the entire economy. Because this law was never written to apply to carbon, the costs will far exceed those of a straight carbon tax or even cap and trade--though judging by the bills Democrats are stitching together, perhaps not by much. In any case, the point of this reckless "endangerment" is to force industry and politicians wary of raising taxes to concede, lest companies have to endure even worse economic and bureaucratic destruction from the EPA. ** Ms. Jackson (EPS chief) made a show of saying her new rules would only apply to some 10,000 facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, as if that were a concession. These are the businesses--utilities, refineries, heavy manufacturers and so forth--that have the most to lose and are therefore most sensitive to political coercion. ** The idea is to get Exelon and other utilities to lobby Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill that gives them compensating emissions allowances that they can sell to offset the cost of the new regulations. White House green czar Carol Browner was explicit on the coercion point last week, telling a forum hosted by the Atlantic Monthly that the EPA move would "obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress." In Sicily and parts of New Jersey, they call that an offer you can't refuse. ** Yet one not-so-minor legal problem is that the Clean Air Act's statutory language states unequivocally that the EPA must regulate any "major source" that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant annually, not 25,000. The EPA's Ms. Jackson made up the higher number out of whole cloth because the lower legal threshold--which was intended to cover traditional pollutants, not ubiquitous carbon--would sweep up farms, restaurants, hospitals, schools, churches and other businesses. Sources that would be required to install pricey "best available control technology" would increase to 41,000 per year, up from 300 today, while those subject to the EPA's construction permitting would jump to 6.1 million from 14,000.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry
The timing for these draconian environmental attacks on business could not be more terrible. The means are unethical and the results will be dangerous. People have to have a way to work, eat and survive. Please read the entire article and do what you can to pass the word that this plan is the wrong plan at the wrong time.
Tea Partiers...the bugal has sounded...take those signs and banners out of storage and get ready for a tough battle...a battle for your job, your wallet, your home, your family, your country.
Tina,
When is the right time to address climate change? Furthermore, what good is it to build up a wonderful business if you don't have a habitable planet to operate it on?
Mark
Since you like to quote Thomas Jefferson, how about this one, written to James Madison when discussing a dam that would permantly alter the landscape.
"The earth belongs to the living. No man by natural right may place burden on the land greater than can be repaid in his lifetime. For if he could, the earth would belong to the dead, not the living."
Our production of CO2 is going to last long after we are dead. This is generational tyranny and it must stop. We are enslaving future generations, and your excuses are the same that slave masters gave in the 1850's when the government said it they had to stop owning other people: we have always done it this way, we can't afford to stop, it will ruin the economy, the bible says it is okay, and it is all a set-up by the socialist government to take away out rights.
Okay, maybe I added the last one for all you tea partiers.
Mark
Mark: "When is the right time to address climate change?"
In reality we have been "addressing" pollution problems and "climate change" for a number of decades and we continue to do so because there is NO SHORTAGE of people interested in discovering solutions to both real and perceived problems. We have plenty of effort that is on going. What will stifle both those efforts and the ability for every American to make a living and afford to live is BIG government taxes and regulation.
"what good is it to build up a wonderful business if you don't have a habitable planet to operate it on?"
That is a BS question, Mark. It assumes that you must choose between one or the other.
"Our production of CO2 is going to last long after we are dead."
This statement assumes everything will remain the same. It assumes also that CO2 is harmful...I agree with this guy:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=78
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=91#more-91
The truth is that climate change alarmists are unwilling to address this issue with a reasonable approach. They are using a hatchet when a nail file would do. This theory does NOT approach the level of emergency that requires draconian measures. What they are proposing will destroy entire industries and the jobs that go with them. People will suffer high energy bills and raised prices for all products and services! We are already in deep trouble. The level of stupidity is too great to measure. Or is it a level of conscious pernicious influence?
Are you really going to suggest that Jefferson would be applauding this legislation?
"...greater than can be repaid in his lifetime."
The actual conditions that our citizens now live in...clean running water from the faucet and flush toilets and sewer systems...improving methods for disposal of trash...warm homes, schools, factories...I think Jefferson would think we have done quite well. Look around the world Mark. Americans are fortunate! If others (our president for instance) would stop maligning and stifling us, we could be the leaders in making even more outstanding improvements and creating solutions to whatever real problems exist. We can't do that withy our hands tied and our wealth stolen!
Tina,
Yes we have been addressing pollution for decades, and industry hacks have opposed the efforts at every turn. So, you are right, none of this is new.
The results of not addressing climate change are real, and horrific. In Chico we lose water, power, and agricultural productivity with every degree rise in temperature.
Since we are discussing Jefferson, who do you think he would believe? Seriously, who would our greatest scholar of the Enlightenment believe, the IPPC or a blog writer?
I believe Jefferson would have trouble understanding how we let anyone, for whatever reason, alter the climate, let alone agree with legislation to limit it. The quote speaks for itself.
As for reasonable approaches, cap and trade is the market based solution you asked for when we debated climate change in earlier posts. Now I am thinking all that rhetoric was just a smoke screen for business as usual, the rest of us be damned.
Mark
Mark: "As for reasonable approaches, cap and trade is the market based solution you asked for when we debated climate change in earlier posts."
More BS...it is a government based tax scam sold as a market based solution.
"Now I am thinking all that rhetoric was just a smoke screen for business as usual, the rest of us be damned."
More emotional pressure for political action and nothing else.
"Seriously, who would our greatest scholar of the Enlightenment believe, the IPPC or a blog writer?"
The blog writer in question is not a run of the mill pajama blogger.
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?page_id=14
Information I cite may be posted on a blog (see blog post below) but the information is gathered from credible sources like Dr. Roy Spencer featured in the interview below his credentials:
http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php
Roy Spencer - U.S. AMSR-E Science Team Leader
Dr. Spencer received his B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the Universsity of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1980 and 1982. He then continued at the University of Wisconsin through 1984 in the Space Science and engineering Center as a research scientist. He joined NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in 1984, where he later became Senior Scientist for Climate Studies. He resigned from NASA in 2001 and joined the University of Huntsville as a Principle Research Scientist. Dr. Spencer has served as Principal Investigator on the Global Precipitation Studies Nimbus-7 and DMSP SSM/I, and the Advanced Microwave Precipitation Radiometer High Altitude Studies of Precipitation Systems. He has been a member of several science teams: The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council study panels. Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader. He received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal in 1991, the MSFC Center Director’s Commendation in 1989, and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award in 1996
SciGuy – A Science Blog with Eric Berger
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/10/post_55.html
October 07, 2008 - Roy Spencer, climate skeptic, speaks
Roy Spencer, one of a relatively small number legitimate climate skeptics, visited Houston today to give a talk sponsored by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Spencer, a team leader on NASA's Aqua satellite, believes natural cycles account for most of last century's warming, with carbon dioxide increases contributing only a modest amount.
He also unveiled new research, which has been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters for publication, which appears to show that climate models overstate the positive feedback from more carbon dioxide, and therefore grossly overstate the projected warming during the next century. Spencer says his work suggests the Earth will warm by about 1 degree Fahrenheit or less during the next century, not the 4 to 8 degrees projected by the IPCC process.
The IPCC estimates there's a 5 to 10 percent chance they're wrong about mankind's impact on global temperatures --
Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I think the IPCC made a big mistake. They're pandering to the public not understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent they make it sound like they've come up with some kind of objective, independent, quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It isn't. All it is is a statement of faith. Sorry for the rant.
That's OK. But wasn't it part of their mandate to put probabilities on global warming?
I think they do need to have statements that will convey their confidence. But I think using numbers is misleading because it makes it sound more accurate than it is.
Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won't permit stuff like this. If they don't find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say "This is garbage," and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they don't have to deal with it. So I don't deal with them any more.
With the current attitudes toward skeptics, then, can such viewpoints still get published in major climate and science journals?
We're finding, the only place I'm submitting right now is Geophysical Research Letters. The American Geophysical Union is still kind of open minded. They've come out with a policy statement that goes along with the IPCC, but it seems like their editorial policy for their journals is still pretty flexible. But again I don't think there's that much good skeptic science going on right now. There's a lot of good ideas, but nobody's funded to do anything.
Is it simply a funding issue, then?
I think that's a huge part of it. Congress gives money to study problems. If manmade global warming is a problem, that's what the money goes to. If manmade global warming isn't a problem there's a risk of losing a lot of funding.
How good would you say we are, today, at determining an average global temperature?
We do pretty good job with that right now. It doesn't matter what the absolute number is, because you can ask, "Well, do you mean at sea level, or at a 2-meter height above the Earth's surface, or do you mean the temperature of the Earth's skin, or do you mean a deep layer temperature?" With the satellites we get really good agreement between two satellites that are taking independent measurements. So we have really good measurements of year-to-year changes. So we can say that this year really was so many hundredths of a degree warmer or cooler than last year. The problem comes in determining long-term trends. I think the most significant thing to talk about what's happened during the last 100 years. And I think there's still substantial uncertainty in how much it's actually warmed.
So if not mankind, then what accounts for the 0.7 degrees Celsius, or so, of warming during the last century? From your talk you seem to point to natural warming, and specifically cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
That was just the first one I looked at from among the main modes of natural climate variability. So I'm not necessarily hanging my hat on the PDO. What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible, and I think likely, that natural modes of climate variability have associated cloud changes. All it takes is a 1 or 2 percent change in global cloudiness and you can get this warming and cooling for decades upon decades, for a century.
For you is there any observation that would make you believe humans are causing the planet to warm significantly?
In order to have a smoking gun we would have to have about 50 years of really accurate satellite temperature data. It's even questionable whether the satellite data we have from the last seven years, which are our best, are good enough. But I think 50 years of satellite measurements would do it. But we don't have it.
The global temperature trend since the year 2000 has been relatively flat. Have you seen any change in climate scientists' point of view as a result? Does this cause them consternation?
Not that I know of. I think too much is being made of that. I don't use that, or see that as any evidence that global warming has stopped. Because if you just look at the last 30 years we've had periods of no temperature increase for 7 or 8 years. That's because of natural climate variability on top of the global warming signal, whatever the global warming signal is due to. So I don't point to that.
That's interesting, because I think some people are surprised by that.
Really?
Yes, if you tell someone the planet hasn't warmed appreciably since the year 2000 they're often surprised. I see the global temperature trend in the same light as the Arctic Sea Ice, something simple that's iconic for the entire issue of global warming, something simple to serve as a proxy for much more complex scientific issues.
I do think that if it doesn't start warming for another five to 10 years, I think scientists will start questioning the theory, too.
In Science, in 2005, you, John Christy and others admitted there was a correction needed in some of your data. Has that actually been incorporated into your temperature data?
Yes. I can't believe this keeps coming up. We made the corrections. It's a non-issue although it's one the BBC, I think it was two weekends ago, they had a special and they interviewed skeptics. It was a hit piece. I remember them interviewing me for two hours, and they kept asking me about this whole satellite data thing and basically what they wanted me to do was admit on camera that I made a mistake. Which I did, and we corrected it. That's science. But that's all the BBC showed from the interview.
You've argued that temperature doesn't necessarily move in lock step with carbon dioxide emissions. But it's still not a good idea to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were 270 parts per million in the atmosphere. We're now at 385 or 390 ppm. Big greenhouses run CO2 at 1,000 ppm. I think the assumption that CO2 is necessarily bad is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific statement. Nature has picked a certain balance, but I don't see it as preordained, or necessarily the best balance. If you talk to some plant physiologists they make it sound like life on Earth is actually starved for CO2. I think that is a position that ought to be impassionately considering, rather than automatically assuming that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is bad because that is not a scientific statement.
If you and other global warming skeptics are right, and the IPCC is wrong, why do so many scientists feel so strongly about climate change?
Most scientists don't understand the big picture, and they are willing to defer to the climate modelers. The climate modelers are willing to put all of the different pieces together into the climate model. And then the climate model is supposed to magically give you the answer. I'll bet a lot of the scientists are skeptical, but they won't admit it publicly. If you talk to most of the scientists who are ardent about the issue, they have a political or ideological worldview that says mankind needs to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a religious belief and it's widespread in the scientific community.
So how did scientists like James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and others gain ascendancy in the scientific community and become spokesmen for the issue, when not all scientists support their views?
By making bold statements. And what kind of statements get reported on in the media?
What's it like being a skeptic in this field, in the year 2008?
Well, as I get older I have less and less energy. So this debate helps keep me awake. This wouldn't be important if it weren't for the policy implications. The direction we're going on policy is going to kill millions of people for no good reason. As it is environmentalists have already killed millions of people for no good reason, with the DDT ban.
I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. Who would Jefferson believe, an international panel of scientists or a journalist?
And I love how the guy ends with environmentalists killing millions of people with a domestic ban on DDT.
Seriously, where do you find these people?
Mark
Mark: "Who would Jefferson believe, an international panel of scientists or a journalist?"
Obviously you choose to ignore scientists with plenty of cred like Dr. Roy Spencer. I have a feeling Jefferson would choose Dr. Spencer over someone like for instance...Al Gore...any day of the week.
That "international panel" includes scientists that only took the word of a few other scientists who used faulty findings to make an assumption that was then politicized by greedy, corrupt politicians...so it really isn't much of a panel.
"And I love how the guy ends with environmentalists killing millions of people with a domestic ban on DDT."
They are cute, aren't they? Making some incomprehensible comparison of the irradication of the biosphere by poisoning with death by Malaria. We are all terribly impressed.
Tina,
You didn't answer the question, but we all know Jefferson would chose the IPCC.
I didn't ask if Jefferson would believe Dr. Spencer over Al Gore but come to think of it the former President would likely believe the former Vice-President over a journalist too.
Mark
Tina,
It seems the business alliance against climate change legislation that you champion is breaking up:
"Becoming the first major consumer brand to make a big statement against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s position on climate change, Apple has decided to leave the organization.
In contrast to PG&E, PMN and Exelon, the utilities that in recent weeks announced their intention not to renew their chamber memberships, Apple is making its exit from the chamber effective immediately, reports the Washington Post."
Here is an article about it in the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502744.html
Here is the article I quoted from:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/10/05/apple-drops-bombshell-immediately-withdraws-from-u-s-chamber/
Mark
Mark (and Libby): "And I love how the guy ends with environmentalists killing millions of people with a domestic ban on DDT."
The reason the reference is germane is that politicians are making the same kinds of errors now with GW science that they made with the DDT scare and it will have unintended consequences that hurt people in various ways, especially the poor.
Ten years after Rachael Carsons book was published in 1962 DDT was banned. There is a very good report and history here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring2004/DDT_Africa.pdf
This article from 2002 includes statistics of deaths and the politics behind the banning of DDT:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html
Although many of the followers of AGW are well-meaning, concerned people the spokemen and funders behind the movement are often incredibly irresponsible. They plunder forth with an agenda dismissing anything and anyone that refutes the "crisis" they are currently selling. Refusal to look at all of the evidence and include opposing viewpoints, even those of scientists with impeccable credentials, is unconscionable, yet that is exactly what the green movement is doing. The leadership has also positioned itself to profit greatly from legislation and adherence to the mandated rules they inspire.
Mark I find it hard to believe that you are one of those who would blindly follow but apparently you are. Dr Spencer is not an obscure blogger or journalist. There are a number of others who agree with him. You dismiss them as discredited but by whom...the very ones involved in this political movement?
If you are brave enough to question I offer the following (another long involved report if you read the whole thing) for your review:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/whatiswrongwiththeipcc.html
Summary for Policy Makers - In the international discussion about climate change, which is now going on for almost twenty years, the IPCC has played a questionable role. From its inception, is has almost exclusively focused on the AGW hypothesis, while systematically ignoring alternative hypotheses. ** IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a kind of network/think tank, which operates under the aegis of the UN. It consists of thousands of scientists, many of them climatologists. Once every five years or so, it takes stock of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate change. It publishes its findings in a series of comprehensive reports, which serve as the scientific underpinning for policy measures, including the Kyoto Protocol, to counter the ‘threat’ of man-made global warming. ** The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its mission is: ‘to assess the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.’ ** Various authors have pointed out that the mandate of the IPCC is too narrow and not purely scientific, since its wording presupposes that there is such a thing as man-made global warming (often referred to as AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming), which excludes other explanations for the (modest) warming which has taken place over the last century. But at the time, AGW had not been proven – and since then the situation has not changed. However, a prominent Netherlands participant in the IPCC has recently stated that today the IPCC is interpreting its mandate more comprehensively and does also take alternative explanations into consideration. But climate sceptics are not convinced that this is the case. ** Yet, the IPCC is generally believed to be the single most authoritative body in the field of climate science and its reports serve as scientific basis for climate policies of governments, which have profound implications for society. As such the panel occupies a monopoly position.
Tina,
I am not blindly following, but I am not putting my head in the sand either. You seem to relish finding people who critique some aspect of AGW, and then go on to claim (as you often do) that the whole thing is a government hoax, and we should ignore it. That is just silly.
Climate change has been described as the long emergency because of the long time delays between releasing CO2 at the surface and it effects in the upper atmosphere. I am for prudent planning because I do not plan on dying anytime soon.
We have yet to reduce GHG production in this country. Any reduction in one area through (market driven?) technological advance is swamped by increase in total consumption. We need to do something, but all I have heard from you is 'nothin.'
So, yeah, I read the stuff you post, and I respect the people you quote. I just don't think you (or they) have made a convincing case against the scientific consensus.
Mark
The debate on how we should to respond to the issue of climate change has focused on the science of climate, not the logic of change. Here are a pair of videos that take a different approach. I would be interested in comments from PS.
Mark
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever Seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
How It All Ends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
Mark: "You seem to relish finding people who critique some aspect of AGW, and then go on to claim (as you often do) that the whole thing is a government hoax, and we should ignore it. That is just silly."
I don't go looking for them but I do stumble upon them as I look for current events and news to post so that we may all comment. I'd like to point out that I have said it has been politicized...that is not the same thing as saying it is a government "hoax". I have not said we should do nothing...that is the same claim the AGW theororists make about those with opposing inconvenient evidence and it is a lie. To deny that this issue has been politicized, and on an international level I might add, is just plain silly.
"..I am for prudent planning"
I am for prudent planning! Prudent is defined as:
What is going on is not prudent planning...it is coercion marked by deception, and it involves political shenanigans.
Whatever problems actually do exist, and those are still being hotly debated regardless the green movement denials, can and should be solved through complete, sound science and industry. If government is involved at all it could be through supportive measures rather than oppressive measures. The UN is looking for a means to creating a global taxing mechanism and the green movement is more than willing to help establish that means. There is more going on here than "saving the planet". It smacks of power and control and behind the scenes greed and a coerced effort to cash in on "alternate" technologies and "trading" entities.
"We have yet to reduce GHG production in this country. Any reduction in one area through (market driven?) technological advance is swamped by increase in total consumption."
http://www.newsmax.com/us/greenhouse_gases_drop/2009/05/21/216796.html
Greenhouse Gases Drop, Lowest in 19 Years
Carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels recorded their largest drop in 19 years last year, the federal government's chief clearinghouse for energy information reported, adding new fodder to the debate in Congress about how, or whether, to reduce greenhouse gases. ** The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Wednesday that carbon-dioxide output fell by 2.8 percent last year, the largest annual decline in energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions since 1990. Last year's record-high oil prices and the start of the economic recession strongly contributed to the decline, the EIA said. ** "There's a linear relation between oil consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions," said Perry Lindstrom, who led the study at EIA. "Lower economic growth also has an effect on energy activity, and we saw that last year." ** The new numbers emerge as the House Energy and Commerce Committee is on the verge of passing a climate-change bill that would impose strict new limits on greenhouse-gas emissions in an effort to reduce global warming. Energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions make up more than 80 percent of the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions, which most scientists blame for the gradual warming of the world's surface. ** "The lesson to learn is that a decline in emissions is caused by a recession and the [House] bill aims to force a permanent recession," said Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "As long as the economy shrinks, so will carbon emissions."
So it's possible that progressives are purposely holding back economic recovery or at least don't care that people are out of work as long as the warming "crisis" is addressed. I don't call that "prudent".
"We have yet to reduce GHG production in this country...We need to do something, but all I have heard from you is 'nothin.'"
Actually my side of the argument has been proposing nuclear energy since the sixties. The greens have consistently blocked that practical, clean solution even with new technology for reducing waste and better ways of moving and storing it. They continue to have a "my way or the highway" mentality.
I just don't think you (or they) have made a convincing case against the scientific consensus.
And that is your right...just as posting alternative points of view is mine. It's not as if I have the advantage, Mark. Google anything having to do with warming and there are millions of articles that support the Gore/UN theory. But the research continues and as long as there are credentialed scientist of some renown who disagree with concensus I believe it is PRUDENT to pay attention to what they have to say. What if they are right? What if this is more political than scientific? what if the political pressure is about manipulation and greed?
This website offered an interesting opinion from Australian scientists and engineers:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/kinninmonth-fox2005-3.php
These links are also very educational on the subject. The first link is an excellent source for opinion from both sides of the issue. The second is informational only.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Tina,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I wonder if you have looked at the links I posted on the logic of change?
I would really like to hear from many PS readers but now that we are on response 16 of a week old post, it may not happen. Do you think you could repost my last reply as my first stand alone contribution under the title of "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See"?
Thanks,
Mark