I am not worried about my electric bill.

Do you realize that some day these butt wipes will figure out that China is biggest source of all pollutants and we can cut gasses drive electric and it will have ZERO impact because the Chinese do not.

They will then demand the Chinese stop it. The Chinese will give the world the bird!

Then what will happen? War!

Yes some dumb arse will demand War to stop these people. Just like the Templars demanding war against the Sarisans.

These Gassers are Fanatics and should be stopped now!

Fazool There is nothing wrong with Texas or the people that live there.There is nothing wrong with not wonting to be taxed to dealth by your president and the runaway congress we now have.

it's hard to take these guys seriously, global warming stopped in 98 and cooling started in 00 per the latest findings from the U of W Madison. Not exactly a refuge of conservatism. This is part of the normal heating cooling cycle tied in directly with sun-spot activity. Having the little ice age end in 1800 and the NORMAL return to warmer temperatures that had existed prior to 1400 is nothing to get excited about. Co2 is NOT a pollutant, this is simply a grab at more gov't control and the ability to tax and redistribute wealth. What I would expect fromn the socialists now in power. Now the Kyoto has expired, I don't see any of the European countrys clammering to reimpose it.

As if we havn't exported enough jobs to lesser nations. All this will do is put yet another nail in the coffin for US manufacturing and the middle class.

Does anyone realize the goal? It is to further weaken the USA and to make those evil dirty manufacturing jobs that pay the undereducated morons too much money go to a nation that will not be enforcing the cap & trade, global warming bull sh!t.

I hear it all the time. How can he/she make so much money, they don't have a college degree! Well your highness, they have a trade! They do more than sit on their ass in an office practicing origami, or braiding paper clips. They gets their hands dirty making cars, building houses, offices, fixing your plumbing, fixing your electrical problems....They are Americans, and damn it, they are productive and the backbone of our nation. They make it so the weak can sit in their offices. They go fight the wars that others sit at home whining about.

It's high time that the useless 539 in Washington be told in no uncertain terms, We're mad as hell! We're tired of carrying your worthless asses while you screw us! We did not become the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH by trying to kiss the collective ass of the world! Put your unproven theories where the sun don't shine, get to hell out of the way. We will take care of the economy, quit taking our money, we can figure out what to do on a local level and will fund ourselves.

Please Mother Nature, get us heading for another ice age before these idiots won't let us go outdoors anymore.

Maxine - The normal heating - cooling cycle due to changes in solar flux (which, by the way, has more to do with orbital mechanics than sunspots), would at best explain .001 of the temperature change we observe (that's 1/10th of a percent). Also, changes in solar flux would be heating the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) as well as the troposphere (lower atmosphere). What we see is that the troposphere is heating while the stratosphere is cooling. This is consistent with heat being trapped close to the surface by an increase in greenhouse gasses.

Even if there were doubt, which for most of us there is little, but suppose there were doubt about our role and the risks we face. Most of us are unwilling to accept these risks for the sake of a few extra bucks. It's our land, our country, our world and our home. A man will place himself between his home and risk, not trade it for a handful of dimes.

Come on 11B. The percentage of greenhouse gasses that man emits is insignificant to what nature herself places in the air. One powerful volcano eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than we can try to.

What this boils down to is more government control over our lives. Anyone jumping on the global warming bandwagon is only fostering support for big brother. Any excuse in the world for them to increase taxes and make us pay more is exactly what they want.

Common sense has been very elusive of late. I don't understand how people can't see how the government is manipulating us.

Yes. Just divert that savings from your tax cut to your energy bill payment.

Then I'll put you in a spaceship with a wood fire burning and see if you live...It's the scale of things and we have gone way beyond the ballancing/healing effects of our planet.

You are the moron.  We have the power to clean the earth up regardless of whether you believe in global warming.

Do you feel no responsibility to take care of our planet.  Guess you probably just throw your trash out the window when driving.  How long has it been since you cleaned your own house?

How did I know that the conspiracy theorists would be in full force once I read the title of this article...

from around the block; is EVERYONE who disagrees with you a moron?

from around the block:

We do have power to clean up the earth. We just DON'T HAVE THE MONEY YET!

With all these leftists scientists advising the Obama adminitration, you would think that at least one of them would have told everyone that MONEY DOESN'T GROW ON TREES!

Only 3 years 7 months till we get a chance to get this nut out of office! Of course we will probably replace him with another nut but this crazy government we have has to end.

Carbon dioxide huh? Ok, everyone stop breathing or you will all be fined!

Thanks Obama administration for another step out of the dark ages. . . .

p ms

Everyone...START SAVING! Your electric bills are going to skyrocket very soon!

Do You mean like they did under Bush? I tell you what if gas prices go back up to 4.65 a gallon this summer like they did under Bush then you can shout your stupid clueless mouth off!

What a great time to crush America's ecomomy. Good job libs! Why does anyone listen to the flat earth, sky is falling, global warming alarmists? Never mind that ice core data shows that C02 rises AFTER temperatures rise. Never mind that it is a fact that the earth has been cooling for the last ten years (that must man-caused global cooling...right?). Never mind that the earth has been warming and ice has been melting since the peak of the last ice age 15,000 years ago (sorry greenies, no SUV's then).
Don't let facts get in the way of your religion. Yes, your religion ,that you proslytize on everybody else and believe in on blind, fanatical faith. Instead you want to take extra steps to harm our economy, while B-rock destroys our financial future for generations.
Keep your religion out of our lives. If you want to go live on a commune and get sterilized so that you help the earth, then knock yourselfs out. Go away eco-Nazis!

Paul L

"Do you realize that some day these butt wipes will figure out that China is biggest source of all pollutants and we can cut gasses drive electric and it will have ZERO impact because the Chinese do not."

Are you really that stupid? The US puts out 25% of the world carbon admission. Now

just for the sack of argument and the US and China both put out 50% of the carbon administion each. That adds up to 100% now if we cut our carbon admissions in half we would reduce the carbon admission by 25% if we cut out carbon admission out all together then we would reduce admission by 50%.

Scott

"Why does anyone listen to the flat earth, sky is falling, global warming alarmists?"

If any body belongs to the flat earth society it would be clueless clowns like yourself how reject modern science.

Tell me your credentials you pathetic clown?

from around the block - You are the MORON! We have benn cleaning up our part of this earth for quite a few years now. I don't know anybody who isn't concerned about cleaning up things. Our water is much cleaner than 10 years ago. Our power plants are much cleaner. But this global warming crap is for the birds and AL Gore. We can't do much about Mother Nature. In fact I remember the old phrase "Don't mess with Mother Nature". We have a bunch of morons like you that are going to piss her off some day. So-called scientist are thinking about shooting crap into the atmosphere to reverse warming? MORONS!!

A recurrent theme prior to the election was people wanted to elect a "smart" man to be president and pointed to Obama as their candidate. I honestly don't know who is more stupid at this point, Carter, Obama, or the voters who elect these dopes that haven't even a basic understanding of how an economy works. Go ahead BO, tax the hell out of everyone and everything you can to support these unfounded fears. I think it's safe to say you'll be a 1 term president.

I disagree with labeling a natural substance a pollutant.As for the threat of smog I want to know one city where smog is worse than it was 20 years ago? I know L.A. is much cleaner than 25 years ago. There are single digit sig alerts versus months of them in the 70's and 80's. Flooding? There's a cause for that. It's called nature.I have never had an issue with cleaning the air we breathe. It's common sense. But there is a further agenda to the Global Warming crowd and these regulations help implement it.

Fazool-349405 The government could help with the problem of global warming by stopping some of the hot air coming out of Texas. Just sayin'

It's the hot air coming out of Washington DC...

I say give the people 6 months warning and time to prepare for the power grid to be shut down to minimal operating status for 3 months and see how people adjust.  Allow only enough power to keep things like water flowing and the rest is up to each person as to how they heat/cool their homes.  Also, ban individual auto use for 3 days a week and on those days, each vehicle on the road must have at least 4 occupants.  Then hold some townhall meetings and get feedback from everyone to see how they like it all and make adjustments from there.........I'm thinking there would be more resistance and naysayers to the whole global warming position then..........Personally I think it is mainly a ploy for scientist's to continue gobbling up taxpayer money to fund their studies, but I do agree that we should be as good of conservationist's as we can....ie, recycle, reduce electrical consumption where we can, not allow companies to dump illegally, etc... 

 Let me run this by everyone as a for instance.....you know those commercials that claim that if every household would use just one of those high efficiency flourescent bulbs it would equate to several million cars being removed from the road?.......if that is true, then why doesn't our government just pay for every home improvement store in the country to get a buttload of those things and have every citizen be able to go in there and get as many as they need for their home instead of just one bulb......heck, we might completely erase the effect of car pollution in a single move!!  Would be a helluva lot cheaper than some of these other "solutions".  Having said that, I have already done my part......over 90% of my home lighting is done this way...I only have incandescent lights in places where I really instant full lighting.  My point is this......there seems to be more talk from the GW community about what all is wrong rather than sensible easy to implement solutions that can supposedly offer significant reductions in carbon output.........ie....the lightbulb story

Only 3% of that increase in CO2 is attributable to man. Temperature rise from 1900 to 1998 was 1 degree That means that man's contribution is .03 degrees. AGW believers say we are responsible for it all. Someone needs to live in the real world, apparently the government doesn't.

Wally, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a "pathetic clown". Really well reasoned thought. Did you learn that in a debating class at Brown?
My point is that pretty much everybody can agree that the earths climate has always been in a state of flux. Science, science wally, tells us that the earth has been warming, and the oceans have been rising since the end of the last ice age. The debate is whether it is man-caused or part of a natural cycle. Science wally, tells us that the earth has been cooling since 1998. We would like you to tell us how that is possible when man has been producing record amounts of C02.
People of good will who dissagree with al gores summations and proslytizations are decried for daring to dissent and not march in lock step. This is what happened it the middle ages. Back then big religion pesecuted people who didn't believe the popular view of the day. The same thing is being done today by big government instead of big religion. That is why I call people who refuse to re-examine their opinions based on new scientific evidence "flat earthers"
Please tell me wally why it has been cooling for the last ten years? Please tell me why global warming is any more of a disaster than global cooling that comes naturally in cycles as well. Don't be afraid of change . It is part of a natural cycle.

Next we'll hear from the FDA that there will be a new tax on burritos due to the excess gas they cause and that it is unhealthy to be near someone with or soon after finishing a burrito...

Out With A Shiver: Global Warming Protest Frozen Out by Massive Snowfall

It was snowing irony in Washington on Monday when global warming activists descended on the District like a storm -- but got beaten to the punch by a blast of wintry weather that incapacitated the city.

March 2, 2009

I'm sitting here wishing it would warm up! My hands are blue my lips are blue. I think my shoulders are part of my ears would someone please turn the heat up. MY heating gas bill has been 150.00 to 200.00 a month thats a 1000.00 a year.Why not just let it warm up! Maybe the earth is supposed to be warmer! Don't tell me its not It was once warm enough for the dinisours. I bet they had massive Farts Too! Hey and what about all those volcanoes spewing? How come its so cold now?

#1: CO2 is a life giving gas not a pollutant.

#2: CO2 is a 3 molecule atom that is heavier that the rest of the amosphere and settles to the lower atmosphere so it is not a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases collect in the upper atmosphere.

#3: CO2 is not a byproduct of fire because one molecule of the O2 (oxygen) is always burned off, leaving CO - Carbon MONOXIDE...stick a hose in your tailpipe and you die from Carbon MONOXIDE (CO) poisoning not Carbon Dioxide poisoning.

It is a shame that the public is soooo dumbed down that dont even know the priciples of fire, and apparently dont know that you exhale CO2. I will refuse to pay taxes on the CO2 I exhale because that is what is coming people...you will be taxed for exhaling. This is step one.

I love this article, the only non-pollutant listed is CO2, none of the other five!!!

Yes, as many of you have commented--IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER-POWER-POWER !!!

The Social Engineers in our Country (world) want to control everything !!!!

First, they start out by helping destroy our financial system in this Country and then move on to the next most important item to control----ENERGY-ENERGY-ENERGY !!!

The first words out of their mouths are let's get Congress to promote CAP AND TRADE LEGISLATION !!! If you really believe that CO2 is a pollutant, then stop exhaling after you breath air into your lungs !!! That's for you manmade Global warming idiots !!

The Only Tipping Point we are heading toward is the extinction of our Nation as a Leader and toward being a third world country.

I really wonder how stupid the LIBERALS in this country think the rest of us are. That majority won't mean much as we get more of this Nation off of their a--es and start making them aware that our way of life is going down the toilet !!!!

For those of you who believe they are going to help the middle class--keep watching your TOTAL tax bill to see the results. Extra tax on Gasoline, on Electricity (about 40% of our energy is coal driven), taxing employee health benefits (about $ 2000-2500/yr), this is just the tip of the "iceberg".

Wake Up !!! It's now past the time when you should all be informing your friends and neighbors !!!

So now the EPA is becoming the azz puppet for the obama admin and the global warming idiots. It doesn't get much more dangerous than this. To have a federal agency pursue fees/taxes and penalties based on the natural cycle of global climate is absolutely crazy!!!! So no taxes on the middle class, BS this is a tax on everyone and all based on trumped up science that man has anything to do with it. 2010 will be fun...as will 2011-2014.

LOL... so my children and my dog are all polluters for breathing... Will I get that tax bill in the mail?

hey,, this gets old... instead of them finding ways to contain/ damper waste..they immediately, have the mentality of , PRICE GOUGING / PRICE HIKING !!!.. this is awful, what is this world coming too??....does everything have to be dumped in the river/ ocean or atmosphere ??? there are practical ways to, compact/ breakdown waste matter..this country, has all the tools, technology and everything needed to be the best.. but somehow fails, or not using their best ability to improvise new concepts..we make simple hard, then we go extreme..I just don't understand their thinking..I Know PRICE HIKE!! what a evil attitude.........

Have any of these tree hugging, global warming advocates ever considered that perhaps the Earth has been continually warming since the Ice Age. I didn't realize they had data going far enough back to track the temperature of the Earth and know the length and severity of it's cycles. Just a thought. Not just that, but on the health front, how many generations have been around since the Industrial Revolution that lived long healthy lives and we have much better carbon emissions now than back then. Perhaps the harmful things to our health are all the "improvements" being made to our foods, consumer goods, "green" goods, etc.

i think it's hilarious that over 700 (and rising) prominent scientists, many of whom are or were on the UN's IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change), told al gore and his constituents, of man made global warming, they are plain wrong. The year when 52 supporters of man made global warming wrote their summary which gore took to heart as the final draw for planet earth was in 2007. at the same time 450 others opposed. today it has grown even further to 700. the "dissident" scientists didn't come from backwoods U. but rather from prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard, NASA, national academy of sciences in the us, france and russia. were did gore get his ph. d from anyways? people need to start looking at the facts, not some tard tree hugger who really has no clue what's going on.

Ours went up this month already nearly 40% and they haven't even hit us yet with the Emission Cap Tax. Sadly this will not just hit the electric companies because it will also affect manufacturing in this country. More jobs will be lost and high prices at the groceries.

Obama is destroying the middle class with this by driving our living standards down farther and farther. Every month we have to try to figure out if there is something else we can cut back on to make ends meet. He's stomping the American Dream of a better life into the ground.

This type of report is a form of manipulation that communist use. Slant it the way you want people to believe.

Odd isn't it that the country which seems to be surviving the recession is China who does not bother with all these EPA warnings and could care less how much they pollute. While they pollute the whole continents of Asia & Europe with brown clouds, we are at health risk from CO2 in this country with our EPA standards, emission scrubbers, and constant boho about environmentalist groups. Strange how that works - they have all our jobs -we have massive unemployment.

The only dangerous gas we have to deal with comes from Washington DC.

WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.

These people in Washington are either incredibly stupid, or they are evil geniuses.

The number one greenhouse gas in the greenhouse effect is Wator Vapor which contributes 36–72%. Carbon Dioxide only contributes 9–26% of the greenhouse effect.

So why aren't the Liberals conducting a War against Wator Vapor instead of a War Agaisnt Carbon Dioxide?

Anybody who lives somehwere hot (like Florida or Texas) knows that when it rains and the sun immediately comes out and dries the rain water that the humidity from the wator vapor causes the temperature to increase thus making the air hot.

But the Liberals don't want a War against Wator Vapor because they can't possibly tax it for profit. This is why they made Carbon Dioxide the enemy of this whole Global Warming scam.

This whole CO2 arguement is just plain stupid. Didn't you Liberals learn in school that CO2 is vital for plant life to thrive? Didn't you Liberals learn in school that plant life uses CO2 to create oxygen?

Don't you people know that in large green houses that companies use to grow flowers to sell in your local market that they load the place up with a constant flow of CO2 because it enhances the health of the plants and spurs it's growth?

It's time to end the phoney War Agaisnt Carbon Dioxide.

Good, like so many things else, it is about time ! Only right wing neocons would not know that these gazes are bad for them and what would they care as long as money flows into their pockets ! Forget about the kids and futur generations !

Great job, democrats !

Right on!!!!! When are poeple going to realize cause and effect and ever action has an opposite and equal reaction...All of this BULL about "Green" and "Global Warming" will kill the already shot economy! ENOUGH ALREADY SAVE OUR COUNTRY!!!!!

Steponme,

Are you stupid or braindead?

If you're going to attack Global Warming, wouldn't make sense to find a solution to deal with Wator Vapor which accounts about for 70% of greenhouse gases?

Can you count? Do you know how to do math?

Explain to me how wator vapor is bad for human health.

Once again, the liberal focused conservation idiots want to tax the american people to death. Cap and Trade? Show me ONE country that this has worked in...Oh, that's right, congress is only concerned about Gore's pocket book.

Well, I am going to go burn a HUGE pile of leaves. I sure want to do my oart in helping exploit this global warming lie!!! Next, I think I'll burn some old tires for prosperity!!!

The difference is that industry is not kicking up unprecedented amounts of water vapour into the air like CO2.

China may be producing more CO2 in the future but the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" still applies.

People argue that smog levels have declined in California and that emissions laws are not needed. However, have you ever stopped to consider that maybe the smog levels declined because of rampant environmentalism and green legislation in California? That further proves that we chan make a change without completely sacrificing the economy.

Man may not be the largest producer of CO2, but it is entirely possible that nature does not have the ability to handle excess amounts of CO2 produced by man. If you have a bucket with exactly one gallon poured in and exactly one gallon scooped out daily, even one drop of extra water added a day will cause it to over flow over a long enough period of time. It takes some degree of intelligence to grasp this.

Environmentalism is not a conspiracy for wealth redistribution. If find it odd how in one hand someone says it will increase energy costs and imporverish middle to low income Americans, yet at the same time say it is a tactic for wealth distribution. How does that add up? I thought the mean old liberal socialists wanted to take money from the hard working rich and give to the lazy poor. So which is it?

Plankton in all the oceans put out more CO2 in one day than all humans do in 6 months.

If the libs would allow more nuke plants to be built to replace the coal and Natural gas plants, we might make a dent in the emissions of pollutants. 80% of the electricity in France is from Nuke plants and soon it will be 85%.

If americans would stop buying so much chinese and indian junk and buy from those countries that actually try not to pollute so much.

If nancy pelosi would give up the jumbo jet she uses to fly back and forth from Sacramento to DC every week and fly on a commercial carrier.

If all the politicians would give up their huge taxpayer funded gas guzzling SUVs and practice what they preach and only drive vehicles that get 30+ mpg. Jeez i hate seeing some suburban going down the road with an enviormental message bumper sticker on it.

If all government car pool vehicles were 30+mpg vehicles instead of lincoln towncars, Dodge and chevy dinosaur gas guzzlers. The average postal service vehicle gets about 15 MPG. How many miles each day do those things drive???

If American companies would allow their employees to work from home several days a week. Think of the savings that would create right there alone by telecommuting.

And if everyone of you out there would unplug your cellphone chargers, the power pack for your wireless modems, your printers and scanners, and all those other little power packs that plug into the wall outlet when they are not in use because they still use 40%-60% of the energy when sitting idle, plugged in but not in use. I did and my electric bill dropped around 22 bucks a month. No joke! I plugged all these devices into an outlet strip and when the computer is not in use I cut the power to them. I disabled the clock on my oven because I have one on the wall etc.etc.etc. I unplug the toaster and coffee maker when not in use because they have clocks or little lights that are still on when not in use. You all are guilty of wasting electricity and contributing to air pollution in one way or another because you are too lazy to take an action to help prevent it. Even i still have a ways to go but at least I am seriously trying to lower my impact. I am not a dye in the wool liberal or a right wing kook. I am a moderate, Gun owning, pro death penalty, legalize pot and abortion but need your parents consent if you are under age, conservative and I do my part to conserve.

Kudos to you wingnut. Moderation is where it's at.

Its a shame none of the anti-global warming crew know how to check out real science. Its the same as evolution: No real scientist denies it, not even those on the 'list' will write a real science paper against it.

Try checking out NASA or the NOAA and looking up their global warming FAQ's. All of the deniers claims are answered.

rjkardo,

Try posting some facts to back up your typing. I have been reading other posts by the "anti-global warming crew" and they even show verifiable facts....you havn't.

THIS IS INSANE. Sunspot activity causes all climatechange.

The problem with an "Inconvenient Truth" is that most people who say they want to protect the environment don't want to inconvenience themselves to do it. They take the easy way out by just creating a tax, so that they can say they did a good job and sleep at night.

All who approve this need to stop exhaling.

They want to tax exhailing...

Gee, if we get rid of the CO2 the trees will not be able to use it to produce oxygen....

According to Scientific News, the termite is responsible for more CO2 exhaust than any creature on earth! (google it, I did) How will they cork a termites butt? Think of the $$$$ Washington could waste on a study to decrease termite flatulence. They already spend millions to study why pig poop stinks......

Get rid of the idiots in Washington who want to regulate and tax us into oblivion and it will be a good start toward prosperity!

Cheers!! So many gullible, stupid idiots out there. Anyone with an IQ below 130 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Time for all the rational people to secede...let's start our own country!!

The planet is already at equilibrium with the CO2 that humans exhale.

Forget termites (altho', yes, the gaseous, little buggers are a major source of both CO2 and methane emissions - note that methane is about 16 times as potent a "greenhouse gas" as CO2), I just read a paper which points out that computer "spam", alone, annually uses the energy equivalent of 2.4 million homes and emits greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of 3.1 million cars! God knows what "Newsvine" contributors add to that total. So, all those folks on here "gassing" about greenhouse gasses are, themselves, vile polluters, as, of course, is Al Gore when he drives his rented Caddy through Oregon at 120 mph in order to catch his private jet home.

The solution is simple - WE are polluters. Everything we do is "anti-earth". If we'd just have the decency to off ourselves, the world would be a better place (provided, of course, that suitable arrangements are made to recapture the greenhouse gasses which our rotting corpses will emit during decomposition and/or those emitted during cremation). There is NO other choice, people! I therefore recommend that all of those who subscribe to the notion of anthropogenic global warming and CO2 "forcing" of climate change take the lead and remove themselves and their "carbon footprint" from the planet. Do it now, for the sake of Mother Earth.

Can't you all see that this is just another scare tactic coming out of Hussein's administration? Bottom line is that he just wants to shut down the coal industry and push the good ole' USA farther and farther back.

We all have a responsibity to be informed, vocale and put preasure on those elected to represent us, cause they have ALL been operating on their own agenda!

Well, those of you who want to breath fresh air rather than eat are welcome to this stupid study but what it is really about is how to lower the Emission Cap lower to get more taxes.

How are you going to have fresh air to breath when you want to deprive plant life of the CO2 it uses to produce oxygen?

"How are you going to have fresh air to breath when you want to deprive plant life of the CO2 it uses to produce oxygen? "

Because plants have existed for millions of years without needing man to burn fossil fuels to supply them with CO2.

oldefarte

Amen Sir!

Dun Trino,

Ummmm, one should attempt to educate one's self prior to posting, lest they appear to be terminally ignorant, or brain dead. Dun, when you exhale, you exhale CO2.....but perhaps from your typing you exhale methane?

Dun Trino

"How are you going to have fresh air to breath when you want to deprive plant life of the CO2 it uses to produce oxygen? "

Because plants have existed for millions of years without needing man to burn fossil fuels to supply them with CO2.

Cute, however many of those millions of years saw regular volcanic eruptions which surely put massive tons of carbon and the air. And yes, trees survived it because CO2 does not harm them.

To infer that trees can die of a carbon overdose is like saying humans die regularly of oxygen overdoses. It's a lie.

Try an experiment. Place an ice cube in a glass of water that is completely full and let it melt. What happens? Ice expands when it freezes, so it will take up the same amount of space!

My problem with these environmentalists is not that they are trying to protect it, but how they go about doing it. They force us to protect the environment and attach financial penalties for those who do not do as they bid. There are plenty of ways of cutting down on pollution and emissions without having to charge people taxes.

They pick coal power plants and other factories because they are distant, and people see them as the bad guy, not thinking that it affects them. If they were to tax and trade emissions on cars, you would see the support significantly decline, because these supporters want to take from the big guy, but are not willing to make their own personal sacrifices.

I do my part to cut down on pollution by riding my bike 20 miles to work roundtrip, it also saves me money on gas and insurance, and owning a second vehicle. I do it by my own choice, I wasn't forced to by some biased scientist and politician team.

What is the definition of an environmentalist? A person who already has their cabin in the woods, and doesn't want anyone else on their turf!

Do you not understand the repercussions of this?

yes we do and we are happy that we can breath maybe fresh air in some years down the road.

What are you breathing now? The argument for this started with trying to minimize "global warming". The EPA has an easier time pushing it through if they relate it to "personal health".

Either way, these "scientists" are, in fact, trying to make this dynamic planet into a static environment. CAN'T HAPPEN!

The GHG argument is a liberal movement, not a scientific trend.

Either way, these "scientists" are, in fact, trying to make this dynamic planet into a static environment. CAN'T HAPPEN!

Anyone who offsets the term scientists in quotation marks when discussing scientifically documented phenomena should have his or her comments summarily disregarded as paranoia.

The GHG argument is a liberal movement, not a scientific trend.

Yeah, that's it. Joseph Fourier wasn't really a mathematician, just a liberal commie bastard in mathematician's clothing who had the keen foresight to create greenhouse gas-driven paranoia which he could then use to cash in on through the inevitable institution of an emissions cap and trade system ... 180 years after his death.

Maybe if you and congress kept your mouths shut - we would have cleaner air.

Terra Incognita

Perhaps if the data they used for their studies wasn't taken and used in such a haphazard manner it could be taken more seriously. You must remember, they put together a bunch of what if's and said this could happen if....It is all theory Cooter!

Never mind that there are numerous scientific studies (core samples taken at glaciers, and the poles) that show a cycle of warming and cooling prior to man inhabiting the earth, never mind that the sun is the furnace for the earth, never mind that NASA says we are in a cooling cycle again, and have been for almost 10 years.

Never let facts get in the way of trying to exert yet more control over a people who have fought and died to help keep the world free.

Never mind that there are numerous scientific studies (core samples taken at glaciers, and the poles) that show a cycle of warming and cooling prior to man inhabiting the earth, never mind that the sun is the furnace for the earth, never mind that NASA says we are in a cooling cycle again, and have been for almost 10 years.

Never mind that scientists knew all of this stuff before you had any clue.

The fact that the earth has been warmer and cooler before today does not explain why it was warmer and cooler, nor does it explain why in the last 50 years or so, the earth has been getting cooler why your "sun furnace" has been reducing it's output of energy to us. Although the rate of temperature increase has slowed, if not plateaued, temperatures continue to be in the top 10 warmest on record category year after year after year. And will not find one scientific organization or set of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that claims we wont have warmer and cooler periods during the overall upward trend.

Jeb,

If you are worried about the the current quality of the air, you should not risk your health, protect yourself ... stop breathing in anymore air.

Perhaps if the data they used for their studies wasn't taken and used in such a haphazard manner it could be taken more seriously. You must remember, they put together a bunch of what if's and said this could happen if....It is all theory Cooter!

You find it convenient to make this claim, yet clearly not convenient enough to provide the data to back it up. All you're doing is hinging your argument on the hope that no one will call you out on it. Well, consider yourself called, Boss Hog.

Never mind that there are numerous scientific studies (core samples taken at glaciers, and the poles) that show a cycle of warming and cooling prior to man inhabiting the earth ..

No one's disputing that. The issue, though, is that the warming trend observed over the last century and a half is strongly suspected to be due to anthropogenic addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere which can only be neutralized by either direct absorption of the gas by ocean water or by chemical weathering of silicate minerals, both of which are processes that operate at slow geologic rates. Add to that the fact that, at least in the case of absorption, their exists a terminal limit to how much gas ocean water of a certain temperature and salinity can absorb, and you have the potential for some very serious consequences (not the least of which is increased ocean pH and higher rates of calcite dissolution, resulting in... you guessed... even higher levels of carbon dioxide release).

never mind that the sun is the furnace for the earth ...

Who's never-minding that? What does that even have to do with your point?

never mind that NASA says we are in a cooling cycle again, and have been for almost 10 years.

What they said was that solar output could be expected to be on a downturn due to decreased sunspot activity starting around 2002. That doesn't, however, address the issue of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, since you're necessarily assuming (and wrongly so) that the hypothesized decrease in solar output would outpace the increased retention of infrared radiation due to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Furthermore, you're again failing to grasp that increased surface temperatures are not the only potentially harmful consequence of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Never let facts get in the way of trying to exert yet more control over a people who have fought and died to help keep the world free.

I would similarly respond: "Never let the facts get in the way of your a priori opposition to the Democratic party and the environmental movement," for it's pretty clear that's where your motivations are derived from. And your misappropriation of the sacrifices made by our armed services personnel to buttress your political ideology and paranoia is also a rather appalling.

terra, you are so wrong I don't know where to begin. You blab about decreased sunspot activity and you completely ignore this persons statement about the earth cooling for the last 10 years. It is a fact (an inconvenient fact, for you) that the earth has been cooling since 1998. How is that possible under your theories? Have C02 emissions been drastically cut since 1998? Of course not. You are claiming earths temperature rises or falls based directly on manmade C02 emissions. It just isn't true.
Ocean levels have risen hundreds of feet since the end of the last ice age. Some low lying costal areas could lose some teritory in the next couple hundred years if the cooling ends and the warming increases. So what! They will be able to grow crops further north and there will be more habitat for many animals. The earth has always been in a constant state of flux and always will be. There used to be dinasours here too. If we someday have the technology to clone dinasours would you want to re-introduce them to their historic ranges? I would hope not. Don't be so afraid of change that you crush or fragile economy.

terra, you are so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Oh, I'm sure you'll manage somehow. Your type rarely fails to disappoint.

You blab about decreased sunspot activity and you completely ignore this persons statement about the earth cooling for the last 10 years.

I didn't ignore that he said it. In fact, I responded directly to it. That I didn't agree with him may be why you're upset, but that's really your problem, not mine. Besides, I didn't agree with him because he's just flat wrong. The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data on the topic of mean global temperature anomalies is unequivocal: mean temperature anomalies since 1998 are, on average, higher than any other 10 year period since record keeping began in 1880. In fact, even if you disregard the average and take even the smallest temperature anomaly (+0.40 degrees C) since 1998, it's still higher than all but 5 years on record, all five of which happened between 1981 and 1997.

It is a fact (an inconvenient fact, for you) that the earth has been cooling since 1998.

Again, the only way you're able to make these claims without feeling embarrassed is to do so without looking at the data. Well, it's time to enlighten yourself: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

I'll save you further embarrassment by addressing your subsequent claims on this same topic, since you clearly just don't know what you're talking about.

You are claiming earths temperature rises or falls based directly on manmade C02 emissions. It just isn't true.

This is a straw man argument. Nowhere in my previous post did I claim such a thing. As a geologist, trust me when I say I know a little bit about the mechanisms that determine the global thermal budget.

Ocean levels have risen hundreds of feet since the end of the last ice age. Some low lying costal areas could lose some teritory in the next couple hundred years if the cooling ends and the warming increases. So what! They will be able to grow crops further north and there will be more habitat for many animals.

Ugh. Talk about apologetics. This is like saying: "All you liberals are always complaining about excess population growth, so who cares if a few million people in Sub-Saharan Africa contract HIV every year? So what!?"

The earth has always been in a constant state of flux and always will be.

Yes, this is true. The point, however, is that this warming trend is not a natural swing within this state of flux, and we're obliged to do something to mitigate it if we prefer to preserve our way of life.

There used to be dinasours here too. If we someday have the technology to clone dinasours would you want to re-introduce them to their historic ranges? I would hope not. Don't be so afraid of change that you crush or fragile economy.

Wow. All the way from dinosaurs to the economy in four sentences.

Answer this then. How do you know with ANY certainty that this isn't a natural fluctuation in the climate? I mean, we have a whole 130 years of climate data that can be used in this capacity. Don't give me this tree ring BS or ice core samples either. The margin of error with regards to temperature is too much to provide accurate data for a good average. Even with the 130 years of averages we have, they still aren't accurate enough til the 1950's to base ANY sustained long term pattern. How do we know with any certainty that the planet is going back to the climate that existed 1000 years ago? They are still finding viking settlements thawing out in Greenland, so obviously it was warmer then.

yes we do and we are happy that we can breath maybe fresh air in some years down the road.

How can you possibly be happy that the government has so politicalized policy control the point where it now deems a gas that YOUR OWN BODY MAKES FROM BREATHING a pollutant, even though it does not meet the scientific qualifications for a "Green house gas" for the SOLE purpose of manipulating the energy markets?

Terra is a retard. She cannot fathom that science proves wator vapor to be the #1 greenhouse gas in the greenhouse effect.

She is totally clueless as to how to tax wator vapor so she blames carbon dioxide for being the culprit of global warming.

She never learned in school that CO2 is vital for plant life to thrive and produce the very oxygen she is breathing at this very moment.

Answer this then. How do you know with ANY certainty that this isn't a natural fluctuation in the climate? I mean, we have a whole 130 years of climate data that can be used in this capacity.

For the very reason that the temperature data isn't the only piece of evidence being considered in the problem. There are several indirect pieces of evidence that corroborate this theorized increase in global temperature, too. Among them are:

-- Unequivocal, geometric increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere coinciding with the timing of Industrial Revolution;
-- The highest rates of glacial recession (both oceanic and continental) in all of recorded history;
-- Rising eustatic sea level;
-- The highest observed rates of extinction of poikilothermic organisms;
-- Rapid rates in the loss of thermally controlled habitats (e.g., alpine forests);
-- Increases in average ocean pH.

These are just a few examples, but all of them, while not necessarily "proving" global warming, cumulatively make sense in light of global warming.

Don't give me this tree ring BS or ice core samples either.

Ha ha... Why, because it hurts your argument? Sorry Mr. Rogers, when it comes to rational inquiry, I don't feel particularly inclined to suppress the data just to preserve your delicate emotions. The truth is more important than your hatred of the scientific method and the Democratic Party.

The margin of error with regards to temperature is too much to provide accurate data for a good average.

You know, we have pretty darn good thermometers today, not to mention the fact that when the Goddard Institute compiles its temperature data every day, it collects daily temperature readings from tens of thousands of stations around the world, as well as using satellite-based remote sensing technology to confirm and analyze the data sets. I mean, just because you don't understand how it works doesn't mean that they don't.

Even with the 130 years of averages we have, they still aren't accurate enough til the 1950's to base ANY sustained long term pattern.

This is just more hearsay that you're hoping someone less familiar with the topic might be willing to believe. Not to mention that you're dead wrong about it anyway.

How do we know with any certainty that the planet is going back to the climate that existed 1000 years ago?

What? Who said it was?

They are still finding viking settlements thawing out in Greenland, so obviously it was warmer then.

Yeah, because Vikings were never known to settle in arctic areas, right?

Terra is a retard. She cannot fathom that science proves wator vapor to be the #1 greenhouse gas in the greenhouse effect.

Actually, Terra knows that there are gasses with far greater greenhouse gas potential than even carbon dioxide or water vapor, he just takes for granted that everyone else should probably know that, too. He also knows that what makes water vapor less important as a greenhouse-forcing gas than carbon dioxide is the simple fact that as water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere, it then falls out of the atmosphere as precipitation, whereas carbon dioxide can't because the atmospheric temperatures in even the coldest places on earth are still above its boiling point.

Seriously dude, even if it is your intention to do so, you're not helping the global warming deniers here one bit by posting this kind of stupidity.

Answer this, Terra:

Main article: Greenhouse gas
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:

• water vapor
• carbon dioxide
• methane
• nitrous oxide
• ozone
• CFCs

When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

• water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
• carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
• methane, which contributes 4–9%
• ozone, which contributes 3–7%

The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

What is your plan to fight and tax wator vapor? Afterall, it only accounts for 36-70% of greenhouse gases when compared to 9-26% of carbon dioxide.

Science shoots down your rhetoric.

How can you possibly be happy that the government has so politicalized policy control the point where it now deems a gas that YOUR OWN BODY MAKES FROM BREATHING a pollutant, even though it does not meet the scientific qualifications for a "Green house gas" for the SOLE purpose of manipulating the energy markets?

Mr. Rogers, I've got a news flash for you: it's also illegal to defecate in public, despite the fact that our bodies (and I can only guess particularly yours) routinely make heaploads of crap. So why aren't you railing against the government for controlling what we do with municipal waste? Besides, your exaggeration and rhetoric only betray your absolute ignorance on the topic, since the amount of CO2 produced by respiring organisms pales in comparison to that produced by industry and transportation.

What is your plan to fight and tax wator vapor? Afterall, it only accounts for 36-70% of greenhouse gases when compared to 9-26% of carbon dioxide.

Again, let me reiterate for the remedial science students: water vapor can only exist in a nitrogenous atmosphere up to certain concentrations. When it exceeds its saturation point, it has the rather convenient option of falling back down to the ground as precipitation. By contrast, carbon dioxide does not. It stays in the atmosphere because it's boiling point is -70 degrees F, which is exactly why the greenhouse effect is far more sensitive to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Science shoots down your rhetoric.

Right. And I suppose next you're going to tell me that your brand of science can prove why evolution isn't true, too. Dude, stop and think before you post.

water vapor can only exist in a nitrogenous atmosphere up to certain concentrations. When it exceeds its saturation point, it has the rather convenient option of falling back down to the ground as precipitation. By contrast, carbon dioxide does not. It stays in the atmosphere because it's boiling point is -70 degrees F, which is exactly why the greenhouse effect is far more sensitive to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Source? Even if this were true then the answer would be to produce more wator vapor to offset the carbon and not to Tax American families, right?

Idiot....

Dude, stop and think before you post.

I did and came to the stunning conclusion that you are an idiot.

Mr. Rogers, I've got a news flash for you: it's also illegal to defecate in public, despite the fact that our bodies (and I can only guess particularly yours) routinely make heaploads of crap.

Are you 5 years old? If not, you would know that defecating in public is unsanitary thus harmful. Breathing in public is quite safe.

Besides, your exaggeration and rhetoric only betray your absolute ignorance on the topic, since the amount of CO2 produced by respiring organisms pales in comparison to that produced by industry and transportation.

And the CO2 produced by industry and transportation pales into comparison to the CO2 produced in nature.

Ok, you answered my question with a bunch of non answers. First off, Vikings didn't settle arctic regions as where would the food have come from?? The ocean? Not in the winter. They had farming and also depended on the ocean as well as it was ice free at that time. If your argument were true, why aren't there any subsistence farmers currently in Greenland? or any farming in general? Geometric increases in CO2??? 60 parts per million last century is hardly a geometric increase in C02 considering it went from 300 to 360 ppm. I guess back 1000 years ago before the industrial revolution another greenhouse source must have been present to explain why temperatures were higher then. Highest retreat of glaciers in recorded history?? How long is that? with any accuracy? 300 -400 years? How old is Earth? Sorry to tell you but the loss of alpine forests usually effects the local area. IE Mount Kilimenjaro. Another news flash. There are more trees in the North America than there were in 1800. I guess you are also going to tell me that tree rings and ice cores are a perfect science that leaves no margin for error? Prove to me and show me your sources that can peg daily temperatures a 1000 years ago within 5 degrees. You can't. As far as thermometers go, no, they weren't very accurate then and with most of your weather readings coming from airports (in the US) , I have to say they still have inaccuracies. (due to heat absorption from asphalt and concrete.) I understand perfectly how this works and that satellites have showed a cooling trend as well. There are also ocean cycles that can cause heating and cooling periods that can range from 25 - 40 years. Contrary to your belief, I love science and I am not a republican. I just don't like when somebody takes a very small data set compared to the length of Earths history and tried to draw a concrete conclusion from it. The day that a meteorologist can predict the weather 100% out to 24 hours is the day you'll get me to believe this psuedo science.

Source?

It's pretty much common knowledge, Mr.C. For example, have you ever noticed how when it begins to rain, the relative humidity increases to roughly 100%? That's because the local atmosphere has, as a function of its temperature and pressure, reached its water vapor saturation point. If you'd like to perform your very own saturation experiment, try slowly pouring salt into a glass of water, and observe how it will dissolve the salt to a certain point, and then once past that point, the salt won't dissolve anymore, but will instead precipitate out as a solid. Give it a try, genius. You might learn something useful.

Even if this were true then the answer would be to produce more wator vapor to offset the carbon and not to Tax American families, right?

No.

Idiot.... I did and came to the stunning conclusion that you are an idiot.

Out of the three posts you've written in an attempt to dispute my statements, not a single one of your hypotheses or conclusions has been shown to be correct. You can call me an idiot if you choose, but you do so at the risk of your own embarrassment.

Bill, your posts are an aimless ramble, ranging from Vikings to Republicans to Mt. Kilimanjaro. Your "demands" for proof on a wide range of subjects seem to demonstrate that, at the very least, you're a very angry person who's desperately holding onto whatever sanity he has left amidst a world that has, for you, been turned upside down by so many black, Mexican, and gay people who have begun to assert their right for equal treatment under the law. I imagine it's a difficult time for you right now -- what, with the first African American president and all -- but you would be far better off accepting as true those otherwise controversial things which are known to be factually true (e.g., evolution, global warming, the death of Elvis, etc.) instead of decrying them as conspiracies masterminded by a liberal society hell-bent on coming after you and your guns. Just relax. The real world can be a very nice place.

Wow! I guess the same can be said about you. I don't understand that if you disagree with me, instead of trying to answer me or 'set me straight' in a professional manner, you immediately assume that I must be some kind of 'crazy' conservative. If you can't provide facts and sources for what you are claiming to be fact, then I guess its ok to try belittle someone instead of having an intelligent debate. I thought the reason theories are theories is because they can be falisfied or later modified. You speak as if the debate and research is over and 'Global warming' is true. How does race have anything to do with global warming? Its looks like to me that you are the one becoming angry that most of us don't buy your 'control my life' agenda. I guess being a 'geologist' isn't a fullfilling occupation that you thought it would be. From my personal experience, the one who resorts to name calling first is usually the less intelligent. Btw, BO is not a FULL African American. Myself, I don't like titles like that. I consider us all Americans.

I don't understand that if you disagree with me, instead of trying to answer me or 'set me straight' in a professional manner, you immediately assume that I must be some kind of 'crazy' conservative.

Because you can't be set straight, Bill. People like you are set in your ways. The very fact that you refuse to accept that global warming is an actual, documented scientific phenomenon clearly demonstrates that you place ideology ahead of evidence. Besides, judging from some of the other posts you've made on Newsvine, it's clear that you're an a priori President Obama critic, a believer in the WMD justification for going into Iraq, and an ardent hater of unions. What I'm trying to tell you, Bill, is that you are a crazy conservative, even if you don't know it.

If you can't provide facts and sources for what you are claiming to be fact, then I guess its ok to try belittle someone instead of having an intelligent debate.

The number one issue at stake here is the global temperature record, for which I provided a link to the authoritative compilation of modern temperature data. Go ahead and look. It's right there in post #3.11. Additionally, it's interesting to me that you reserve for yourself the right to ramble on and on and on about how global warming is a liberal conspiracy, and yet you don't feel particularly inclined to provide evidence for your own claims.

I thought the reason theories are theories is because they can be falisfied or later modified.

Yes, that's true. But the problem, at least for you and your ilk, is that no falsification has been made of global warming.

You speak as if the debate and research is over and 'Global warming' is true.

That's because it is. Research and debate will certainly continue, but global warming is a real phenomenon, regardless.

How does race have anything to do with global warming?

It doesn't. Let's just saying I'm positing a hypothesis.

Its looks like to me that you are the one becoming angry that most of us don't buy your 'control my life' agenda.

No, I'm just constantly annoyed that people like you are willing to be pawns for an ideological movement that does not have your best interest in mind. Wake up man, you're being totally conned and used.

I guess being a 'geologist' isn't a fullfilling occupation that you thought it would be.

Actually, I've been able to travel the world and see some amazing places that I would never have been able to otherwise. Being scientifically literate also has the added advantage of making one's life much more full and appreciative of the wonders that nature has to offer. Life is short, so why live in ignorance?

From my personal experience, the one who resorts to name calling first is usually the less intelligent.

Even parents get annoyed with bratty, uncooperative children from time to time.

Btw, BO is not a FULL African American. Myself, I don't like titles like that. I consider us all Americans.

Of course you do.

Bill, Mr. Rogers,

One thing I have not seen Terra admit, and I have never seen a credible person deny.

Most articles by respected scientists that disagree with the global warming crowd, and those in the media who disagree with the nay sayers all share one statement....

The "theory of global warming". That pretty much says it all. No one has said it's a certanty, they all say theory.

And how pray tell does a geologist become an expert on climate? Breathing methane? That Terra resorts to name calling is quite telling. Kids say "dude" these days and apply it to either gender. When I was a kid we called a guy a dude. A girl was a dudette =)) So by simple deduction I believe that Terra is from California and the credibility necessary should apply.

The "theory of global warming". That pretty much says it all. No one has said it's a certanty, they all say theory.

Kind of like the theory of evolution, or the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. You fail, in predictable fashion, to grasp what a theory actually is.

And how pray tell does a geologist become an expert on climate? Breathing methane?

I don't claim to be an expert. In fact, all of the information I've provided in my posts is readily accessible information which anyone interested in a rational investigation of the topic can evaluate for themselves. But, being scientifically trained, regardless of specialty, definitely does have the advantage of making the topic much easier to understand. Besides, climatology and geology are both earth sciences. You can't study the one without encroaching on the other.

That Terra resorts to name calling is quite telling. Kids say "dude" these days and apply it to either gender. When I was a kid we called a guy a dude. A girl was a dudette =)) So by simple deduction I believe that Terra is from California and the credibility necessary should apply.

There you go. When you can't offer anything substantive, just duck and roll away from the issue at hand.

Terra,

Darwin's theory was dismissed by the great theorist Charles Darwin prior to his death. It seems that "educated" people have determined that the inventor of the theory was wrong when he said he was wrong.

Newton had mathematical equations on his side, but was overshadowed by Einstein and his theory of general relativity. Both have proven to be correct.

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

A theory is subjective to the viewpoint of the theorist. If you find a group of people who are starved for attention and relevancy, then they can agree on a theory. Such is the case of the egotists who feel that insignificant man can have such a detrimental effect on the global temperatures. If that were true, one could safely assume that volcanic activity had nothing to do with the Ice Age or the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Darwin's theory was dismissed by the great theorist Charles Darwin prior to his death.

I would otherwise neglect to comment on this absurd statement and instead prompt you for your "evidence" demonstrating it, but in my dealings with your type of evidence-challenged people, I know you won't provide it anyway, so I'll just respond in kind. You can only be referring to the urban legend that Darwin recanted his belief in evolution and converted to Christianity on his deathbed, but as I've already alluded to, it's a widely known myth invented in 1915 by Elizabeth Reid, a British Christian evangelist who has been discredited as a patent liar. Darwin's own family members, who were present at his death in 1882, have testified to the fact that neither did he recant, nor did Reid ever even meet him. But hey, don't let the truth get you down. Maybe tomorrow you can take up the banner of moon landing conspiracies.

Newton had mathematical equations on his side, but was overshadowed by Einstein and his theory of general relativity. Both have proven to be correct.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, as I've said nothing damning about either Newtonian physics or general relativity. But, while we're on the point, Einstein's equations are the more accurate of the two sets, as Newtonian mechanics fails to account for physical interactions at either the subatomic level or at high velocities. Any modern gravitational calculation goes far beyond merely g = GM/R², and instead accounts for relativistic effects. I mean, how else do you propose that GPS technology is able to work with satellites orbiting the earth at 14,000 km/hr?

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

OK, you're doing fine so far...

A theory is subjective to the viewpoint of the theorist.

...But then you go and say this. While the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (which you're incorrectly invoking to defend your case) suggests there are consequences for our observation of natural phenomena, those consequences are strictly limited to the subatomic realm. Regardless, the perturbations to the natural world that arise from such observations are still objectively identifiable by all observers. Let me reiterate that: the perturbations to the natural world are still objectively identifiable by all observers.

Regardless, climate change is not a phenomenon relegated the subatomic realm, so it need not suffer from unnecessary concerns over Heisenberg uncertainty. Additionally, it's also regarded by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, including even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (hardly a bastion of liberal politics), as a human-caused phenomenon.

If you find a group of people who are starved for attention and relevancy, then they can agree on a theory.

You mean like members of the right-wing lunatic fringe who spent their Wednesday afternoon protesting the non-tax increases implemented by Obama?

Such is the case of the egotists who feel that insignificant man can have such a detrimental effect on the global temperatures.

Ah yes, the "global-warming-is-only-believed-by-egomaniacs-who-think-they-can-change-the-weather" gambit. This is an interesting (albeit oft-heard) ploy used by the right, which, if nothing else, is interesting for its peculiar use of reverse psychology. I have to say, however, that it's a little more than ironic to hear right wingers, who usually feel quite at home with exclaiming their preeminence over just about every other facet of the natural world (clean water, furry animals, blacks, women, reality) actually trying to don the guise of humility in order to make their case. I should warn you, however, that living a life of humility actually involves living it every moment of your life, and not merely pulling it out like a cheap party trick when you perceive it might serve to win you some temporary advantage (which, in this case, it hasn't).

If that were true, one could safely assume that volcanic activity had nothing to do with the Ice Age or the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Sure it did (as far as we can tell). But that's just not the case today. I mean, the mere fact that there exist other ways for global temperatures to increase doesn't necessarily mean that anthropogenic CO² production isn't the reason for this instance of temperature increase. Your argument is total nonsense.

Terra Incognita

Out of the three posts you've written in an attempt to dispute my statements, not a single one of your hypotheses or conclusions has been shown to be correct. You can call me an idiot if you choose, but you do so at the risk of your own embarrassment.

Why is that? Because you say so? Whatever, woman, put the pipe down. Common sense easily rebuts this. But that is something you obviously lack.

Greenhouses used to grow plants and vegetation are often set up to maintain a constant flow of CO2 because it enhances the health of the plants and spurs it's growth. The presence of CO2 has absolutely no affect on the overall temperature in a greenhouse. None at all.

And, anybody who lives somehwere hot (like Florida or Texas) knows that when it rains and the sun immediately comes out and dries the rain water that the humidity from the wator vapor causes the temperature to increase thus making the air hot.

Common sense and real science (not faked Liberal science) tells us that wator vapor has more effects on temperature than CO2.

And, the fact that water vapor is always more abundant in the atmoshpere than CO2, up to 70% of overall greenhouse gas. It doesn't change like you claim it does.

Why is that? Because you say so? Whatever, woman, put the pipe down.

So, in addition to your scientific illiteracy, we can count misogyny among your characteristics?

Greenhouses used to grow plants and vegetation are often set up to maintain a constant flow of CO2 because it enhances the health of the plants and spurs it's growth. The presence of CO2 has absolutely no affect on the overall temperature in a greenhouse. None at all.

Oh, to be an ignorant fool. What you neglect to realize is that the mechanism by which a greenhouse traps heat is quite different than the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect traps heat. Greenhouses use visible light passing through transparent panels to heat air that is prevented from escaping outside, thereby reducing convective and conductive heat loss. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, traps heat by preventing radiative heat loss. Furthermore, your average greenhouse has a height of about 10-15 feet, whereas the troposphere has an average height of 17 kilometers. So let's just say that the troposphere has a little bit more carbon dioxide in it than your average greenhouse.

Seriously, just because they both have the word "greenhouse" in their name doesn't mean they work the same way, you dolt.

nd, anybody who lives somehwere hot (like Florida or Texas) knows that when it rains and the sun immediately comes out and dries the rain water that the humidity from the wator vapor causes the temperature to increase thus making the air hot.

Very good, monkeyboy! But again, you're dead wrong on thinking this has anything to do with the greenhouse effect. Water has a specific heat of roughly 4.2 joules g^-1 deg C^-1, which means it retains a lot of thermal energy when changing from a liquid phase to a vapor phase. When sunlight evaporates liquid water after a rain storm, that newly evaporated water vapor near the surface holds a lot of heat, thereby causing the ambient temperature to rise. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. But keep trying! Perhaps by the end of this you'll have a moment of epiphany and realize that continuing to be a global warming denier requires much more futile effort than you're willing to muster.

Common sense and real science (not faked Liberal science) tells us that wator vapor has more effects on temperature than CO2.

Water vapor certainly causes a greater per-joule retention of infrared radiation than carbon dioxide in the troposphere, simply because there's more of it. Nobody's disputing that. But it's excess carbon dioxide -- not excess water vapor -- that is responsible for the increased temperatures in the last century and a half. That's what you don't get. You simply can't add more water vapor to the atmosphere without it precipitating out as either rain or snow. However, you can add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which then stays in the atmosphere, thereby causing the greenhouse effect to increase in intensity. And that's exactly what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution. Stop and think about it for a moment.

And, the fact that water vapor is always more abundant in the atmoshpere than CO2, up to 70% of overall greenhouse gas. It doesn't change like you claim it does.

You're confusing local water vapor content in the atmosphere with global water vapor content. Local levels of water vapor definitely do change (which is what I said). I mean, why else do you suppose we have local weather changes? By contrast, the global level of water vapor stays pretty much constant, as the entire global atmosphere is much larger than local weather systems and is not heavily influenced by them. Your situation could be much improved if you would just stop and consider what you're saying before you type it.

Obama has no intention on touching NAFTA, so yes he lied....again.

This cap and trade idea is going to kill the economy. Utilities will have to significantly increase the price of electricity. Meanwhile, Obama is blocking nuclear, which emits no GHG's and is cheaper.

SOME GET CUT, Especially those clean utilities in California. Those dirty plants yes your rates will go up. As well they should!

I support getting rid of (or reducing) coal plants, but they are also blocking nuclear. Nuclear is the only GHG-free energy source that can support the base-load needs of the country.

And the 1 little problem? THE WASTE? You want it?

Recycle it. Yes, it can be done. Yes, it IS being done. Just not here, go figure.

so you would rather pay 1000.00 or MORE a a month for electricity? Where do you get the money for that? some vapor job?

This is SILLY, you need to pick what you want to do. Global warning is a hyped up movement, the 1 degree has ALREADY corrected itself. We are actually in a cooling period. Al Gore has invested money in those cap and trade companies. Of course he's pushing it (all the while having 3 huge houses consuming tons of power and a private plane) -yeah he's really green isn't he?

I am all for other forms of energy but carbon dioxide as a POISON??? Come on that is what we EXHALE and PLANTs INHALE... you know the things we EAT??)

So if you plant more trees, etc you will help just as much as you will by doing other things, how about we give away free compact flourescent bulbs to consumers?

How about we create more energy efficeient applicances, computers etc. Then as you start to reduce the need for power you also look for ways to make power cleaner.

You have a choice here, you want to save the air, go nuclear (right now it's our only option for our power hungry planet) or you go back to the times before electricity.. (which is really want the enviromentalists want) back to you don't use cars, electricity and that you buy your food local (sounds alot like they want us all to be amish!!)

Now I don't have a problem with that per se, but lets' call it like it is. This president is paying back the EXTREMIST Hate groups that put him in office. I say HATE because if you don't follow or believe anything these groups are pushing for they HATE YOU and want you to go away and rot.

So you want to go green, do you part, turn off YOUR electricity in your house, go to CF bulbs, grow your own food, (including meat if you eat it and make sure you know how to kill it as well) and see how well you survive that.

I'm ready for a world without power (because I sure won't be able to afford a world if this cap and trade goes into effect) Oh and what do you think people will do for heat if they can't have electricity because it's too expensive? Propane, Oil, Wood burning stoves... you want to see emissions, there you go... have at it.

I"m all for solar and wind and nuclear, hell do it all but this man isn't about that, he want to cap and trade and then doesn't want to promote ANYTHING that will take it's place on this large scale (solar and wind aren't LARGE players yet) only nuclear comes close... and EUROPE that country he so loves is POWERED on Nuclear... so there you go.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Steven Chu (Energy Secretary) is an advocate of nuclear energy.

I support getting rid of (or reducing) coal plants, but they are also blocking nuclear. Nuclear is the only GHG-free energy source that can support the base-load needs of the country.

Nope, not true. Wind energy is the single fastest growing energy sector in the U.S., and it's still hugely under-developed. The state of Montana is a great example of how less than a fraction of one percent of the wind resources that have been developed there still provide more than 10 percent of the state's electricity needs. Add to that the fact that they also utilize hydroelectric power, and you have the potential for a truly emissions-free energy economy in the state. The problem is that too many of the state's Republican legislators are deep in the pockets of the coal industry (not to mention the fact that they're a bunch of paranoid neanderthal-types who block progress any way they can). As a result, the state's wind power development has been stalled for a few years now.

People who advocate, as the previous poster did, for expanded nuclear energy production are, to their credit, at least knowledgeable enough about the subject that they recognize that burning coal is a significant problem on several fronts. Unfortunately, they also can't seem to let go of their own right-wing, paranoia-driven opposition to what they see as Democratic or liberal ideas such as wind and solar power. As a result, they insist on promoting what they see as a safe bet -- nuclear energy -- which allows them to toe the line between admitting that greenhouse gas emissions are environmentally damaging without, as they see it, giving in to Democratic principles. My suggestion to them would be to do a little background research on uranium oxide processing, which is far from emissions or pollutant-free.

Yeah, Obama developed all this so called global green house garbage many years ago when he was just a kid because he would be President some day.

No he was living the green life in Indonesia under the alias Barry Surtero

terra, maybe you hadn't heard, but the enviro-nazis sue over wind turbines because they might kill a bird or two. They also sue when California tries to put solar panels in the desert (something about a rare type of dirt I think). Hydro, bad for spawning salmoniods (but good for other fish). Nuclear, not in my back yard. Geothermal, I'm not sure what there lawsuit is on that one, but I'm sure they have one.
My point is that all of these are "Green" and don't emit C02 or burn fossil fuels, yet "environmentalists" still work feverishly to kill any project. Every choice you make will have positives and negatives, liberals don't get this. A few bugs might get killed, some fish too. You have to accept some environmental downside because there are no perfect solutions. I drive an SUV, but I dig the idea of solar, geothermal, wind, and nuclear. It's just too bad liberals fight any and all progress. I'm sure you live in some kind of structure. That structure covered up land that once held bugs and animals. If you don't want to have any impact on earth your only option is to off yourself (I'm not saying that to be mean or snide, just a fact). If you want to cripple the coal industry you should replace the lost power BEFORE you do it.

10 % of Montana's electrical power comes from wind energy.......

10 people live in Montana......1 has a windmill....

I'm sorry. I just couldn't resist the humor considering the EPA will be able to tell me when and how deeply I can exhale since I produce carbon dioxide.

Wake up America - we have complete idiots running this country who couldn't keep a regular job stocking twinkies in a 7-11.

terra, maybe you hadn't heard, but the enviro-nazis sue over wind turbines because they might kill a bird or two.

That certainly happened with the Altamont Pass wind farm in California back in the 1980s, and for very good reason: it kills around 5,000 birds annually, many of which are rare birds of prey. Today, however, and thanks to the "enviro-nazis" you so unhesitatingly malign, many states have laws mandating that avian studies be performed in an area before construction of a proposed wind farm installation commences in order to determine the potential hazard to migratory birds. As a result, bird kills are generally less than two animals per turbine per year. It is true, however, that some so-called environmental groups do insist on cutting off their noses to spite their face, and oppose any and all development. Their numbers are small, however, and it's been shown that many of them are little more than front groups for the coal industry seeking to stir up controversy and local opposition to green energy installations. Regardless, the fact that such groups exist has no bearing or consequence on the reasonableness of my (or your) advocacy for emissions-free energy development.

Every choice you make will have positives and negatives, liberals don't get this.

While I certainly can't speak for all liberals (and of course, neither can you), it seems to me that liberals generally get it. It's just that, unlike their conservative counterparts, they tend to put open discussion and argumentation ahead of party and ideological unity in exchange for a more informed decision-making process. As you suggest, it certainly takes longer, but the pay off is in being able to arrive at better solutions to pressing problems. This is why conservatives in our Congress continually fail to provide working solutions to things like the economy, job loss, or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan -- they simply refuse to discuss things openly, and instead stick to the party platform.

10 % of Montana's electrical power comes from wind energy.......

10 people live in Montana......1 has a windmill....

Around 1 million people, with one 135-MW wind farm installation. But don't let those salient facts get in the way of you being a cynic.

Terra,

It takes a wind farm 2,500 SQ KM to generate the same amount of power as one nuclear reactor. For wind power to actually make a dent I can't imagine how many mountains and valleys will have to be covered. Last time I went backpacking in WVA I came across a small wind farm in Canaan Valley. They are ugly and spoil the environment we all seek to protect. We all need to conserve energy and reduce pollution. Cap and trade is not the answer. Building nuclear plants will at least help. Use a little common sense.

FYI.. Texas creates the MOST renewable engery of any state due to the largets wind farms on the planet.

Terra,

"This is why conservatives in our Congress continually fail to provide working solutions to things like the economy, job loss, or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan -- they simply refuse to discuss things openly, and instead stick to the party platform. "

It's difficult to discuss issues when the Democratic leadership goes into a room by themselves (behind closed doors, real open, huh?) and decide how they see fit to spend Billions and Billions of dollars. Grow up. You are a typical liberal hypocrite.

Spending billions of dollars is actually part of a solution to improve our economic crisis, not something we're doing for kicks. Personally, I found the paltry 19-page coloring book Republicans proffered as a PR stunt lacking.

"It's difficult to discuss issues when the Democratic leadership goes into a room by themselves (behind closed doors, real open, huh?)"

If by "the Democratic leadership goes into a room by themselves" you mean "into the halls of Congress with all members present" then, yes, you are a correct.

"Grow up. You are a typical liberal hypocrite."

Seeing as how Terra has been one of the only posters in this intellectual desert utilizing critical thinking, logic and *gasp* empirical evidence, I'd say he's about as grown up as you can get. Time you do likewise, rather than resort to ad hominem attacks.

It takes a wind farm 2,500 SQ KM to generate the same amount of power as one nuclear reactor.

The average nuclear power reactor produces 4 gigawatts of power. The Horse Hollow wind farm in Nolan County Texas, for example, generates 735 megawatts of power over a land surface of 190 km², which equates to a 4 gigawatt wind power installation over a land surface of 1034 km², so you're off by a factor of roughly 2.5.

Regardless, it's true that wind power installations require more space. But you're conveniently neglecting to mention all the other details about nuclear power that make it particularly unattractive as a solution. First, it's extremely expensive, with new power plants costing approximately $3,500 per kW of capacity (so our hypothetical average 4 GW installation would cost roughly $14 billion). Secondly, when you speak of land use, you conveniently neglect to discuss the amount of land that is used by the mining industry to extract uranium oxide from uranium deposits. Between processing facilities, safe storage repositories for unused ore, tailings piles, roads, and the mines themselves, you're talking about a significant amount of land surface that, once abandoned, is virtually nonreclaimable for anything else. There's also the issue of storage for spent fuel rods, which is inevitably limited to the subsurface where it has the potential to contaminate natural formation water, as well as aquifers. There's also the issue of the time it takes to build a nuclear reactor, which is generally from 6-10 years. Wind power installations, by contrast, can be constructed in less than two years, and are usually only delayed due to the current high demand for turbines. There's also that issue of reclaiming nuclear reactors after their relatively short operation life of 20-30 years. Any way you look at it, nuclear power is a poor solution.

For wind power to actually make a dent I can't imagine how many mountains and valleys will have to be covered. Last time I went backpacking in WVA I came across a small wind farm in Canaan Valley. They are ugly and spoil the environment we all seek to protect.

True, but not nearly so much as the cumulative effects of other non-emissions-free energy sources (e.g., coal-fired and nuclear power plants). In the end, we have to recognize there's no such thing as a free lunch, but we can still try to get the most bang for our buck, and without the unsavory, environmentally compromising consequences.

We all need to conserve energy and reduce pollution.

On that point we can certainly agree.

Building nuclear plants will at least help. Use a little common sense.

I can't believe for a moment that you would, on the one hand, argue vehemently against wind power, and then on the other hand, argue that nuclear power is the only option that can offer some help. And you're telling me to use a little common sense? Face it, Bob, you simply object to wind power because you think it's a "liberal" idea. Anyone who knows anything about the topic of domestic energy production knows that wind and solar are far better solutions to the problem. I mean, heck, the energy industry itself is pretty much the authority on recognizing what's a good solution and what's a bad solution, and they're unanimous on the issue, which is exactly why wind energy is the fastest growing energy market in the United States. You would do well to sacrifice your political ideology in exchange for a clear-headed appraisal of the situation.

Around 1 million people, with one 135-MW wind farm installation. But don't let those salient facts get in the way of you being a cynic.

Not being a cynic, as a Texan, I'm familiar with large scale wind farms. They are a good idea for supplementing our power generating needs. But the logistics can be difficult. The best locations for the turbines in Texas are nowhere near the existing power grid. Oncor is having to invest three billion dollars (which we will pay for as customers), just to build the transmission lines to get the electricity from the location where it is produced, to the cities where it will be used.

I think there is more practicality in smaller rooftop units the homeowner could install to help reduce their grid requirements a bit. But then you get into home owner association rules and neigborhood asthetics.

And besides, we've got over 26 million people in Texas (granted, probably 2 million aren't legal - except to vote in Obama's eyes). That would take a huge number of turbines to cover.

Terra, if Montana got rid of coal mines, we would get rid of coal strip. Now, you should now that not only is that a whole lot of jobs, but it is also the main way we get power here in Montana. Although our power costs are more than that in California, Coal strip keeps the price down so that we don't see energy prices only the rich can afford. Now, if we were to switch completely to wind energy, we would not be able to afford electricity, and so when it gets down to -35 at night, and we don't have power, what praytell are you going to tell those people who are freezing to death. Wind energy is expensive, second only to solar energy I believe.

Terra, if Montana got rid of coal mines, we would get rid of coal strip. Now, you should now that not only is that a whole lot of jobs, but it is also the main way we get power here in Montana.

I'm not suggesting we shut down the Coal Strip facility, I'm simply suggesting we urge further emissions-free development. Over time, those jobs can be replaced by other technologies. Heck I live in Wyoming where the ten most productive coal mines in the country are located, so the issue of jobs is not lost on me. But we need to recognize that a fossil fuel-based economy is not likely to be a sustainable one. Even in Wyoming, where coal is king, the State Geologist's office will tell you that coal production here can't keep pace with current consumption. Our Senator, John Barrasso, is going around the county pawning off a total lie about Wyoming having enough coal to supply the US for 250-500 years. I mean, it's a bald-faced lie, and he knows it. The Wyoming Geological Survey even says we only have enough recoverable coal resources to accommodate 47 years of consumption. So again, I agree that jobs and local economies are important, but we've got to start being realistic and plan for the future. And between our two states, wind power can be a huge boon to local economies.

Now, if we were to switch completely to wind energy, we would not be able to afford electricity, and so when it gets down to -35 at night, and we don't have power, what praytell are you going to tell those people who are freezing to death. Wind energy is expensive, second only to solar energy I believe.

The costs of wind power are greatly misunderstood, in that because the industry has really only gotten off the ground in the last 7-8 years, the costs have been historically disproportionate to what they can be once the infrastructure is in place. As SRM previously pointed out, the major problem is access to utility grids. That has begun to change quite a bit, however, as many state legislatures in the Central and Rocky Mountain regions have extended tax incentives to utility companies for expanded grid access. Since you're probably getting your electricity form NorthWestern Energy, you're currently paying around 0.04 cents per kWh for wind energy (of course, you're paying that regardless, since NW incorporates all of their energy costs into one baseline charge for residential users, regardless of source). As for your hypothetical anecdote about people freezing to death because of wind energy, I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but you need to stick with the facts and do away with the hysterics.

I think there is more practicality in smaller rooftop units the homeowner could install to help reduce their grid requirements a bit. But then you get into home owner association rules and neigborhood asthetics.

This is a good and practical way to go... I hope us Texans can lead the way here. I mean if we can put up ugly satellite dishes, certainly we can put up well designed (aesthetic as possible) turbines that cut our electric bills by 3/4ths. Besides, most houses in Texas have high roof lines and the wind we get is strong pretty much year round.

That's one of the issues with wind and solar power that I have yet to be discussed. Besides the logistics, wind and solar are not necessarily practical everywhere. Those of us in the midwest have a lot of cloud cover, and we do not have mountains and passes which aid the wind turbines. Where I live, quite a few people have installed solar panels over the years, only to find that they were not cost effective.

I find the argument about the birds being killed by wind turbines humorous considering cell towers are responsible for more bird deaths annually than wind turbines, but wind turbines require locations with constantly high wind speeds and not all area's fit that requirement.

The trouble is every way you turn some jackass is against alternatives to burning fossil fuels.Nuclear? Hollywood won't let you have that. Wind ? Peta can't have a bird flying into the windmill. They are going to wipe us out as a legitimate nation. But it's okay because they can afford the alternatives in Hollywood (as long as they don't have to see them).

Long 8 years, Linda. He does have a 65% approval rating... 60% approve of the stimulus package, over 60% approve of his budget, and almost 70% agree with stricter greenhouse gas restrictions. We had to be the minority while bush was destroying our reputation and setting the country back decades, now you have to be the minority while we try to fix it all.

If by fixing, you mean raping our wallets... Thanks?

If your over 250,000 maybe it should as you had been raping ours for many years!

Mike,

As soon as cap & trade takes a very large bite out of everyones' pockets and forces more jobs out of the country, Obama & his allies will have to look up to see down __— for they'll be in the gutter. BTW, if you and your friends have bought into this BS, then do your part and stop breathing __— mustn't put any CO2 into the air, isn't that what you preach?

Mike, your "approval ratings" consist of 1200 Americans in a Gallup Poll. No telling where these people were polled. So 1200 people represent a nation of millions?

Have fun with your polls. The rest of us are continuing to save so we'll have as much left as possible after this administration tries to bankrupt us.

Jeb, why is it that people who make over $250K are evil? Why such wealth envy? Why such disgust for those with money? Why not work to make more yourself? What do they owe you?

How about you stop working for them, and see where it gets you?

Trickel down's been tried before and does not work. And if you love this country you should feel blessed to be able to contribute to it. Right?

Jeb

Sit the glass down and back away from the kool-aid !!

Jeb it's proven fact that UNDER BUSH 42% of americans didn't pay taxes. AT ALL. NONE.

and our "president" wants to say that MORE people shouldn't pay... Those people have no skin in the game here. He want to vote all those illegals as citizens so he thinks he will have 12 million more people to vote for him!! Do you think they will stay if they have to pay taxes??? (heck no!)

I work really hard, I don't make more than 250K but I applaud those that make that kind of money and want to be like them and learn from them.

I don't ENVY them and want to take their money from them and have them give it to me for things I didn't earn. That is what we are taking about here ENVY. Which like greed is one of the 7 deadly sins.

If you want to make more - do out and do it. I personally think the only fair way to do it is to pay a FLAT tax. You make 10K you pay 10%, you make 100K you pay 10% you make a million you pay 10% - that is FAIR. Everyone pays and everyone benefits.

You want to make the tax laws easier there you go. Kill the books on taxes, stop killing the trees, get rid of the tax attorneys and just tell the people of this country there are no exceptions. You live here, you pay taxes. PERIOD. You pay a flat rate, the more you make the more you pay but EVERYONE pays. THAT IS FAIR.

THAT simplifies the tax codes and saves us from having auditors and others in the IRS etc. it would be one sentence on a page. You live here and work here then you pay taxes of X% on your income no exceptions.

my taxes in 2007 (under bush mind you) were over 25% of my income, I am still paying the IRS what I owe them while our presidents friends get out of paying their taxes.... and penalities (they owed more than I did and their penalites were less - how does that work?? Hmmm, maybe they are getting SPECIAL TREATMENT too??)

I guarenttee you the "RICH" will be in line to pay their taxes, but will you be?? will those that are complaining now about how "unfair" life is and how they don't have enough handouts be in line to pay THEIR fair share? I think not!!!!

After all ENVY says I want what you have enough that I want to you not to have it and take it from you to GIVE to me... not earn it, but GIVE it.

Our forefathers, and even grandparents knew you had to work hard for what you got. SInce when did our population turn into a bunch of whiny children who think the world should be HANDED to them and not earned...

oh yeah.. products of those 60's hippie parents aren't they, teaching in the schools that liberal hype that the world is so wrong and the US is so evil...

But offering NO options on realistic ways to make things better. (like try reading your history for one) socialism doesn't work, communism doesn't work. But what DOES work is free market, competition to drive down the prices and drive up the quality.

Yet government once again couldn't leave that alone either and created NAFTA which took jobs out of this country. We couldn't live right now without China and Mexico. DO you realize all our factories to manufacture clothing are just about gone????

Get your facts straight Jeb. Our president doesn't want fair, he wants socialism or possiblty another cuba with him at it's head. Read the reports, look at what our HUGE government is doing. Socrates said democracy fails when those in power realize they can vote themselves "presents" and that is what is going on now in OUR government, they aren't listening to the people at all. They are voting themselves presents. They got a raise this year. A big one... who do you thin THEY care about? YOU? Heck no, if they cared about you they would be doing all they can to reduce YOUR burden NOT increase it.

You want fair, then let's make everyone equal in the game and WE ALL PAY TAXES.

This Jeb guy has no sense of reality. True liberals really have their heads in the sand deep. Most of the stupid ideas I have ever heard of came from liberals, yet they continue to get votes. I just don't get it. Maybe this country is just full of kool-aid drinkers, or maybe people just believe every line of BS they hear. Maybe scientists should study which it is. I'd pay for that study.

Most of the stupid ideas I have ever heard of came from liberals, yet they continue to get votes. I just don't get it.

Maybe do some reading of peer-reviewed journal articles, or actual science books, and you might.

Kath63: Great point about the 42% but you failed to reveal the whole truth, under GOP rule the price of everyday goods doubled and even tripled in price....sales tax we pay on those goods doubles/triples as well and these facts cannot be spun.

My point is that we haven't such a tax hike like the we've had in the last eight years since Regan was president.

You are certifiably out of your mind...where do you shop? I will avoid that store. Try aldis. So the price of what tripled. I think I purchased something in the last few years. You just can't throw crap and expect it to stick. The market sets the price and inflation has been stable for the most part. So far even now.

Have you looked in a grocery store lately John? Did you buy a gallon of gas this time last year? Everything has gone up except wages and the majority of Americans will agree with that fact John.

Linda

Tell me Linda you said it's going to be a long four years. Well what would you prefer going back to Bush policies? Because they worked so well right?

Scott, the ones in charge believe it. The only things you will see in print are PRO because of that.

Hansen and company won't publicise the CO2 experiment done april 2008 peer review completed June 21 2008 that shows as carbon doubles the heat gain decreases logarithmically until near zero. Experiment started at 385 ppm CO2.

When you read, hear, or see anything remember, you are only receiving what they believe and not necessarly the facts.

Mike, don't care how old you are, but you won't be around for the flooded cities. I would like to see the look on your face when that huge power bill shows up......

Anyone that believes there will be global flooding needs to have their head checked. Personally I'd rather see a flood. Most liberals live on the coasts. I live in the mountains. I'd love to see them swim, if they can. Liberals wouldn't know what to do under a true life threatening situations either. Most would hold on to thier Obama posters and just sink to the bottom.

Willy

Mike, don't care how old you are, but you won't be around for the flooded cities. I would like to see the look on your face when that huge power bill shows up......

I know you have the attention span of a fruit fly but last year at this time we were paying over 4 dollars a gallon for gas.

You do realize that the earth is cooling. OR did you miss that part? The consensus of the scientific community is that we are getting colder. Just wait until you are chopping up your furniture to burn in the winter to stay warm. OR maybe you could wait until the next warming period. The earth does that you know. Gets warm, gets cool, gets warm, gets cool. IT is called cyclical.

Wally,

And your point?

By the way, 10 years ago, we were paying 69 cents a gallon......

Fruit fly, huh......sharp as a marble.

All it takes is a stupid media story that gnat pee was detected in a single barrel of oil from Sandlot, Saudia Arabia and the price of gasoline goes up a dime a gallon. Supply and demand doesn't seem to play nearly the role in price increases as media hype and hysteria.

Having better levels of domestic production sure would eliminate a lot of the "unknown" when it comes to oil supply. And keep in mind that no new refineries have been built in this country for thirty years. It's only American inginuity that has provided productivity gains from our existing facilities.

The concensus of the scientific community is that AGW is real. The consensus is that Earth is heating up and that mankind is playing an important role. Check out the actual science.

Try the NOAA or the NASA websites and see for yourself. Just do a search for global warming and you will get an FAQ that answers your questions.

Its not hard to do if you try.

Pardon me, but perhaps when they get their weather forecasting accuracy average rate above 47% I'll consider believing them. But no one here has convinced me that people who make computer models and input data are infallible. Nor have they convinced me that when you put a set of hypotheticals together you get a fact based outcome.

LMAO,not with the cost of wind turbines and solar panels your electric bills will only increase.Nice spin though.

You don't have any facts on that one my friend. The cost of renewables has been lower and if there will be a limit on coal emmissions for example people will need my credits. Supply and demand. My cost will go down as people pay me for my credits...Are you not Capitalists?

To those who preach the entire Sun and Wind will save the day.

Wind and Solar has been looked at by serious companies. They don't make money. They were PR only, and they are a waste of time in their current form. Today Wind, Solar and the like make up 3.5% of the power grid (As of December of 2008).

Whatever chiba people are smoking that think their bills are going to go down better pass it around because it's obviously some good stuff.

Also those industries are heavily heavily subsidized. With the subsidies they barely make a profit, without them they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of breaking even.

Ignorance is the most expensive thing we have in this country, especially economic ignorance.

Jeb...........do you HAVE any renewables.....?

And Apple didn't have any of the cell phone market either, guess that was not worth your investment either....or the handheld gaming market...Get your head out, there will be a shift in power generation. Few years ago it was less than 1%.

BP yes, it's marketing; but there are Solar only companies and yes they ARE making money.

Yes, I do.

In the form of what?

rails to where? I used to live in seattle, one of the greenist cities on the planet, the rail goes from the airport to seattle (and to tacoma and evertt) - but nothing from the east side to the seattle (which is where most of the traffic is) the bus system is a joke it took my son over 2 hours each day to ride a bus less than 5 miles and the buses are EMPTY there.

Sure you can sit on a bus for 4 hours a day or hmmm, work? do homework? have a life or wait I know - I can just sit and home and do nothing, and save the planet!! yeah that sounds good...

And I agree with everyone here. For me to put solar on my house costs about 10K that is with money and credits from the government. To do it right I would need to convert back to a boiler system and tankless water heater which is about another 10K. So now we are at 20K... how do people pay for that Jeb? 20K over 5 years with interest is something like 450 a month.... that is more than people are paying in power NOW and guess what they would STILL have to pay for power on days where you don't bank enough solar. (and even in california you have rainy days!)

How long would I have to live in that house to make that money back and then be able to start asking the power company for money? You are talking something like 5-7 years and that is IF the weather holds, there are no earthquakes or tornados that cause you to have to rebuild. SOLAR and WIND (palm springs) are large in scale but don't create that much power. (ask the power company!) Seattle uses water from the falls yet during the winters when I turned my heat DOWN to 60degreees in my house I was paying over 350 a month of heat. And that was AFTER paying 40K for new windows, new insulation and wrapping ducts and pipes!! I still haven't recouped any of that money...

I wish I got a payback of 5-7 years. I installed solar and wind on my house, and with me doing the work, getting all the available tax credits at the time, it's been 9 years, and I believe I just got there. However, before I go and increase what power bill I get, since mine is a hybrid system, I'll spend a few more bucks, and just go off grid. It won't make a hill of beans (now THERE's some gases) difference to do this solar or wind stuff, until it is ECONOMICAL to do it. Cows still eat grass (even if they don't, the grass decays, emitting the same gases), termites still chew wood, algae and plankton will still generate most of the oxygen we breath, and the trees will love the increase in CO2.

Jeb, the question still stands.....

Kath,

You are right -- going green still costs a lot at this time. Costs are going down but in this economy not too many people still have the income to do a house sized project (I know I don't, even with solar getting down in price and the rebates) I had solar hot water back in the 70's but when it kept freezing and bursting I finally gave up -- It did save lots of money and I kept it going for 10 years. I would really like electric panels but the last estimate I got was over $20k for 2.5kw -- and the rebate didn't come for 5 years. If you are handy, understand elecrticity you can diy but then -- no rebate. IMO the cap and trade system is just a way for the rich to get richer or maybe a way for countries to shuffle paper around to settle debt -- whichever, it will cost you and I.

Nefarious Attempt to Fleece The Americans........

Yes and we do our share as well. Maybe we can ban chainsaws. :-) Or at least those big machines that just clear-cut. I'll be for that. Make it hard to cut a tree and not so many will be cut. That and not buying newspapers. If life could be so simple.

Talk to the people in the forest industry. You want to save the Rain Forests let American forest companies cut down sustainable forests in the United States. Then they wouldn't have to buy wood offshore.....

I own property that I manage for wildlife and it is important to clear cut sections of forest occasionally to diversify the wildlife habitat...Check it out yourself...it takes all ages of forest to have different types of wildlife....So yes I clear cut areas of my property. Grouse & woodcock will diminish if there are not clear cut forest areas...

On the clearing of the rain forests in Brazil, if you keep up with the news, within the past 2 months (best as I can recall) there was a news segment on this. They are clearing the rain forests so the can grow more sugar cane to make ethanol, so they can export it to the USA. Real smart, eh ! The forests between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are the most important forests for the absorption of CO2 and the release of O2 __— for the entire world !

One difference is US loggers cut for wood, not to clear land for farming. US loggers may clear cut at times, but replant. We stopped cutting old growth forest to save the spotted owl. Scientists then discovered the owls were nesting in new growth too. So the EPA banned cutting that. Well, where do we get our wood from....yep South America can provide it at the expense of the rain forests. It never ceases to amaze me how the knee jerk libs never do grasp the concept of unintended consequences. It would be funny if it was not so maddening.

How about the Chinese economy?

All economy is based on the earth's ability to provide. Common sense dictates that we only pursue renewable and sustainable paths. China will do what China will do. The question is what will we do? What will YOU do?

Oh, and just so you know, China is the world's leader in both solar hot water heating and wind turbine technology. They're not stupid and they are on board with change.

And I'm not Chinese.

China understands business and free markets for commodities such as natural resources. Communism is still alive, only it's here now while China booms and booms and moves to the stars!

The U.S. leads the world in the production of electricity via wind turbine. So I don't know what you mean by "turbine technology". China also has a new coal fired plant coming on line every week. They are the dirtiest method of energy production. Even as their energy demands increase they will continue to generate about 70% of their electricity from coal for the forseable future. China is no friend to the environment.

smacdo

Google China Maglev wind turbine. China's new coal plants use the best scrubbing technology currently available and they are retrofitting the older plants. Check it out.

WRONG. It's the best time to do it!

Jeb were you born last night? I was born at night but not last night. Get off your knees and stop praying to your God Obama.

This is not the time to force companies, or people, to think green. We cannot afford it with everything else that is going on.

But we can afford the ever-increasing cost of natural disasters? So we can't pay for it in a steady gradual amount that reduces the climatic effects over time, but we can pay for it in sudden, large, and catastrophic events.

We can use some population control anyway.

Over-population is part of the bigger problem. Most people dont get it.

Puck2 sh!t for brains

Just more debt to tack on to what we already owe. This is not the time to force companies, or people, to think green. We cannot afford it with everything else that is going on. Spend, spend, spend. Then later tax,tax,tax to pay for it. That is how the Democrats do it. We can use some population control anyway.

I am so impress with your knowledge: "spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax"

Spend on what? Tax who? Should we cut out the military after all we spend spend spend on the defense budget? Should we turn our highways into toll roads or should we spend spend spend to keep the highways free?

I know you wanted to reelect Bush because he cut taxes on the rich and the economy prospered so well under his admnistration!

Why don't you stupid republican clowns catch a clue!

LOL...Ever increasing natural disaters? WHERE? And how is that proof of anything. In case you failed to study in school you should know that the Earth has cycled through tempartaure changes MANY times. Nobody knows if this is a cyclic event or man-made. And although some will argue that point, they cannot prove it. And even if it is, so what. It is what it is. And as I said, population control is the key to survival. End of story.

Oh my...Wally you are so tactful. You are showing just how smart you are....LOL. Another Democrat who does not know how to debate issues without name calling...LOL. Where do these morons come from? And why has their school system failed them so badly? I DID NOT want to re-elect Bush. And if I did I COULDN'T. You also should learn there is a TWO TERM LIMIT on the Presidency. You want a clue? Okay. Lets see. It was either Colonel Mustard in the Ballroom with a Rope, or it was Miss Scarlet in the Library with the Candlestick. There. That should keep you occupied while we fix this countries problems. When you think you have it let me know, I will give you another. Then you can go back to sleep. We have this under control and WON"T be needing you AT ALL.

What is the ideal temperature for the Earth anyway? I don't mean just where you live Wally but everywhere. If you try to manipulate the Earths climate, it goes down here, stays the same or goes up somewhere else. Rainfall decreases here increases somewhere else. How do you know what's ideal? If the global temperature is rising, how do you know that's a bad thing for everyone?

Yes, and there are probably more trees on this planet now than there ever was......

Like fish, trees grow according to the food available. When there is more CO2, there are more acorns the following years. You, Mike in Fl., should notice that some years, you walk out your door and there might be a scattering of acorns, and the next year, you might roll on them like a floor full of marbles.

More food.........more trees.......that's my science. I said so, so it must be true.

Just within historical times (a mere "blip" on the scale of geologic time), we've had at least five, major climate reversals. ALL of those predated the industrialization which is now cited as the cause of "global warming" (a warming which actually started around 1700).

At the beginning of the 14th C., for instance, there was a sudden climate change, with all the disasters associated therewith by modern climate modelers - natural disasters (floods, droughts, violent and unseasonable storms), crop failure and starvation, new and newly virulent pestilences and plagues. In the midst of the worst of those plagues, a group of people discerned that PEOPLE were the cause of the problem. It was OUR sins which had doomed the planet. The most fanatical of those individuals began to self-flagellate (literally, not economically, tho' the motivations and reasoning are the same) in order to appease God and to thereby bring the planet back into happy equilibrium. Anyone who dissented was attacked and bullied and portrayed as part of the problem, because, of course, so far as the flagellants were concerned, "the theology/science was settled". Never mind that beating oneself with rods had absolutely no effect on the plague or the climate, it was comforting because it gave people the illusion that they were in control and it made them feel morally superior to those who just happened to disagree with them.

There is NO difference between the current climate vagaries and past climate changes and, save for the language used, little difference between people's reactions then and now. We have sinned and we must atone by suffering (physically then, economically now). As the late Michael Crichton once termed it, it is "environmentalism as religion", only Gaia is now our God.

Santayana was right. and "cap and trade" and Kyoto are simply the latest manifestations of mankind's capacity for collective madness.

Everyone knows that Dinosaurs died from Smoking Marlboro's.

You're 100% correct. CO2 was many times higher 65 million years ago when the entire planet was tropical and there was more life here than there ever has been since.

But don't expect the likes of President Oboma to combine some science and history to make an informed decision.

They’re all either Zealot Earth Worshipers (ZEW) or modern day Bolsheviks coming to take away everything you worked hard for.

I'll go another step; let's put a 50% tax on weed (too much CO2 when exhaling); 50% tax on illegal drugs (that we'll make legal), let the drug addicts die if they can't pay for their habits (less CO2 emissions); We'll put them on that fast train to San Francisco or Hollywood and let them only pollute the air in California. Wow do you think I could take over Pelosi's job? I think I have all the answers to Climate Change. THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE, IT'S CYCLICAL STUPID.

Crusher -- I agree -- tax that stuff, but instead of giving it to our big govt (putting it into the general fund for pork) lets subsidize the development of a cleaner energy system so we all benefit with new power sources. If we actually put money into development I'm sure the costs will come down, the elect companies can get off of coal, still make a profit -- and create quite a few new jobs as well.

You're 100% correct. CO2 was many times higher 65 million years ago when the entire planet was tropical and there was more life here than there ever has been since.

But don't expect the likes of President Oboma to combine some science and history to make an informed decision.

They’re all either Zealot Earth Worshipers (ZEW) or modern day Bolsheviks coming to take away everything you worked hard for.

Cheers!! So many gullible, stupid idiots out there. Anyone with an IQ below 130 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Time for all the rational people to secede...let's start our own country!!

Anyone with an IQ below 130 shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That would disproportionally eliminate people on the skeptical side of science...?

Damn, if I had only known this earlier......lol.

I am all for going green....pull my finger for wind power.

jeb: we will likely get cap & trade and it will lead to more natural gas powered electricity generation and less coal. the best long term solution is nuclear plants

Zupek, I applaud your facts related to vocanic activity and remember hearing that argument years ago. Unfortunately, you never hear it said in the mainstream media. The stupidity of the folks pressing the global warming issue is astounding. The only thing that can make sense (assuming global warmers are really not that stupid) is that it is a big lie, a conspiracy to generate fear and therefore more economic activity, as well as $ in the pockets of those championing it.