The proenvironment businesses aren't going to fix the economy, ithey have actually hurt it . Focus on the environment when we are prosperous again, not now. I say burn, harvest and generate the cheapest energy regardless of the environment until we are back to 5% unemployment.

Anonymous wrote:well, climate-gate II clearly disagrees with everything you just wrote.

Yawn. If the current research on climate science was wrong for political reasons then the Koch brothers could easily prove it they did not.

well, climate-gate II clearly disagrees with everything you just wrote.

Anonymous wrote:the climate change debate is so politicized that we really need to start over with new scientists in charge. those that do not have an agenda.

Uh do you people realize how academics even works? Science isn't a company where there is a CEO and a climate division. Scientists do their own research, publish their results, the community learns from that. Then other scientists build studies to confirm or refute the conclusions or to further refine them.

If you or any other credible researcher wants to study something, you go and do it.

Lastly the major debate (are we warming and is it caused by humans) is almost entirely in the public. Very few academics hold an opposing view. If 95% of us voted for one candidate in a presidential election we would consider it the most resounding victory in politics. Yet if 95-98% of scientists agree, we call it a debate. Crazy double standard.

the climate change debate is so politicized that we really need to start over with new scientists in charge. those that do not have an agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people deny climate change, they argue over what to do about it. Unless we can stop China's and India's future growth it is all a moot point isn't it? So might as well worry about engineering solutions.

Maybe you are writing from a foreign country and haven't been States-side for many years? I know that the Dutch already have a 200-year plan to deal with climate change, but here some people are still arguing that the Universe is 5000 years old.

Now, now, let's not be silly! The fun-for-mentals generally say the universe is about 7000 years old. Luckily, they have an infallible document as proof of this claim, and also to give them dominion over everything. So, really, God's giving them license to pretty much destroy creation willy-nilly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people deny climate change, they argue over what to do about it. Unless we can stop China's and India's future growth it is all a moot point isn't it? So might as well worry about engineering solutions.

Maybe you are writing from a foreign country and haven't been States-side for many years? I know that the Dutch already have a 200-year plan to deal with climate change, but here some people are still arguing that the Universe is 5000 years old.

Now, now, let's not be silly! The fun-for-mentals generally say the universe is about 7000 years old. Luckily, they have an infallible document as proof of this claim, and also to give them dominion over everything. So, really, God's giving them license to pretty much destroy creation willy-nilly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:did you see today where global emissions are up because of the coal plants in India and China?

Of course they are. But do you see how low their per capita emissions are? Blaming countries because they are large is ridiculous. We account for one quarter of the increase in global warming last year. We 300 million people, 4% of the world, created 25% of the increase. A country like India won't touch our pollution levels for decades.

none of that is relevant. is the goal to lower global emissions or not? or is the goal to punish the US?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:did you see today where global emissions are up because of the coal plants in India and China?

Of course they are. But do you see how low their per capita emissions are? Blaming countries because they are large is ridiculous. We account for one quarter of the increase in global warming last year. We 300 million people, 4% of the world, created 25% of the increase. A country like India won't touch our pollution levels for decades.

Just curious, have you been to Beijing? I was there and had to wear a mask due to the pollution. It is pretty severe. I'm not following how China and India are such stewards of the environment, both countries are filthy messes, even worse than New Jersey, if you can believe that.

Anonymous wrote:did you see today where global emissions are up because of the coal plants in India and China?

Of course they are. But do you see how low their per capita emissions are? Blaming countries because they are large is ridiculous. We account for one quarter of the increase in global warming last year. We 300 million people, 4% of the world, created 25% of the increase. A country like India won't touch our pollution levels for decades.

My point was not that they should continue to pollute, but that if we won't start first, nothing will happen.

did you see today where global emissions are up because of the coal plants in India and China?

takoma wrote:Besides the issue of how much more pollution we do per-capita, there is also the history of us building up our industrial base without any ecological restrictions, and now telling others that we all have to restrict equally regardless of how much we polluted in the past to get where we are.

again, is the point of Kyoto to be fair and also punitive, or is the point to lower global emissions so as to possibly slow the rate of global warming? I don't see how fairness (and or punishment of high per capita polluters) is relevant if global emissions continue to skyrocket. And they will unless developing nations (6% GDP growth) are a part of the solution. Otherwise this is just a bureaucratic dickdance.

Besides the issue of how much more pollution we do per-capita, there is also the history of us building up our industrial base without any ecological restrictions, and now telling others that we all have to restrict equally regardless of how much we polluted in the past to get where we are.