Comments on: NO CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY WITHOUT CHINA

By: mannning

mannning — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:47:01 +0000

There are many scientists that oppose the current mad dash to restrict CO2 emissions from our factories and automobiles. A massive number of scientists have signed a petition denouncing the hysteria and absolving CO2 from any major impact on our climate. This petition is still open for those who wish to join the effort.

The link is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html

In addition, under the Senate minority committee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Senator Jim Inhofe, the minority staff has compiled yet another list of scientists that do not believe CO2 is causing global warming. Many of these scientists have published a statement for the record voicing their specific objections to the current hysteria.

This effort is documented here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

At the very least, it is clear that Global Warming from manmade CO2 sources is not a settled scientific issue. It is also clear that CO2 is not in itself the threat it has been made out to be. The science of climate prediction is in its infancy, and attempts to predict global temperatures over a hundred-year period are simply laughable.

By: East Bay Jim

East Bay Jim — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:23:38 +0000

I like “untold effects on weather systems”. If you can spin a catastrophic yarn from farting cows please take a shot at describing the weather effects from nuclear radiation. I’ll get the popcorn.

By: U.S. Common Sense

U.S. Common Sense — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:54:37 +0000

To summarize a post that I just lost (darn Comcast), I am all for nations working together to improve the environment on our planet, but any talk about signing “treaties” in order to do this sends chills down my spine. Creating arbitrary caps for production on a global level, especially with the number of developing nations becoming more industrial, makes no practical sense. And punishing nations when goals are not met makes no sense either. Instead, the nations that are better off financially and technologically should be encouraged to help out the less fortunate nations, but on a voluntary level.

By: Rightwing Nuthouse: “No Climate Change Treaty Without China” | U.S. Common Sense

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:59:08 +0000

[...] the rest of the article HERE. yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = “Rightwing Nuthouse: “No Climate Change Treaty Without [...]

By: SteveBradle

SteveBradle — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:04:27 +0000

The enviro-warming nuts can’t even predict the temperature next year in Topeka, but they want us to think they can predict global temperatures for the next 10 years. They can’t prove why the ice age type periods of 50 thousand years ago occured, or why the earth is cooling in areas now when it should be, according to the nuts, getting warming. But you won’t see that in Gore’s next movie.
Take as an example the current scam now going on of “carbon credits”. There is a new blooming mini-stock market of buying and selling credits, complete with middle-men, and no doubt coming legislation to require industry to participate and attain zero carbon footprints. Energy compliance may be the Fed’s last place to really rake in some bucks. After all, now that Fannie Mae has been exposed as the Fed’s instrument of plunder via mortgage manipulation, what are the cash strapped career DC thieves to do? Layoff some of the massive federal workers? Not on your life, those are VOTES you are talking about.

By: Drongo

Drongo — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:33:37 +0000

“I think it’s the height of arrogance for us to believe that WE have any kind of power, individually or collectively, to affect the climate of this planet.”

Quite right. After all, the very idea that humans could, say, irradiate most of the planet in a matter of hours with untold effect on weather systems is just liberal nonsense.

By: robert108

robert108 — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:28:49 +0000

I have a problem with making an equivalence between the global warming advocates and those who don’t buy into that hypothesis. By definition, an hypothesis is an unproved guess; and educated one, maybe, but still a guess. It seems to make sense to not take action on an hypothesis without substantial and unequivocal proof, which has yet to be presented for so-called “global warming”. Those who don’t accept either the silencing of debate by the globalwarmingists or the extreme socialist measures proposed to “fight” it, are simply being scientifically rigorous. Besides, global temps have not increased since 1998, and may even be decreasing. Sounds like much more than reasonable doubt to me.

By: Chuck Tucson

Chuck Tucson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:22:37 +0000

Gayle

Why is it arrogant to believe that human activity could have an effect on global climate?

Let’s just get real here. If we could control the climate in any way, why do we continue to allow catastrophic hurricanes? Why are earthquakes tolerated?

Discussing the tolerability of earthquakes is about the exact opposite of “getting real”. Throwing the issue of control into the discussion is intellectually dishonest. The notion of human activity having an effect on global climate is quite different from controlling it.

Being concerned about climate change is intelligent. Conducting scientific experiments to determine if/how humans can affect the climate is intelligent. Labeling those who are concerned about such things as “idiotic liberal twits” is a poor way to further your point of view.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:59:12 +0000

“Just like us”: I can see this being true, and not total bull. Perhaps they want do to be as powerful and wealthy as us… why not? But not as we are now, rather, the way we got here. Is it maybe they don’t want to emulate our regulations as they stand now, because they view that as hindering the goal? Maybe the way to accomplish it is to go through a heavy industrial period where they can pollute at-will, and worry about clean air and water later, on when they’ve got the money to do so?

By: Gayle Miller

Gayle Miller — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:34:34 +0000

I think it’s the height of arrogance for us to believe that WE have any kind of power, individually or collectively, to affect the climate of this planet. What we are experiencing at the moment is nothing more nor less than one of Earth’s cyclical changes.

Let’s just get real here. If we could control the climate in any way, why do we continue to allow catastrophic hurricanes? Why are earthquakes tolerated?

Those who have swallowed the nonsense about climate warming have the wide-eyed credulity of 2 year olds seeing Santa Claus at the Mall for the first time - and that man with the ersatz belly in the red suit is just as real as our ability to affect the earth’s climate in either a positive or a negative fashion. Once again, the “magical thinking” of idiotic liberal twits!