Palin: Global Warming Not Man-Made
It’s common for the top and bottom of a presidential ticket to disagree about certain issues, but it’s a little bit strange for them to disagree about elementary facts. Part of John McCain’s “maverick” status, for example, is that even though he now opposes his own climate change bill his website still says things like “John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy.” Sarah Palin, by contrast, says of global warming “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”
This is perhaps a problem with picking a running mate you’ve never met.
Presumably McCain disagrees, though I’d be hard-pressed to trust the judgment of someone who denies basic scientific realities just because its bad interest-group politics in an oil state.
62 Responses to “Palin: Global Warming Not Man-Made”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
She’s probably not looking for your vote.
Much better to mindlessly follow the rantings of a lunatic like me, Big Fat Orange AlGore.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Palin is not a member of the reality-based community — doesn’t believe in global warming, believes in teaching “intelligent design,” believes that a fetus is a human being (not all of these beliefs are equally stupid; ID is biggest problem here). It’s as simple as that. McCain chose her to appeal to fundies, and I guess she’ll have that effect.
It’s definitely a repeat of Bush/Quayle.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I don’t think it’s man made either. Does anyone?
August 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Re jg
It is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that global warming is happening and that it is, at least in part, caused by combustion of fossil fuels, particularly coal.
However, there is still enough uncertainty in the seriousness of the situation that global warming denial is not yet on the same level as evolution denial, HIV/AIDS denial, or CFC/ozone depletion denial but it’s getting there.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
However, there is still enough uncertainty in the seriousness of the situation
Aside from the 2.5% chance of the end of civilization as we know it, yeah.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Veering slightly off-topic: she’s a creationist. Her dad was (is?) a science teacher.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I never thought of it as caused by man so much as us exacerbating a natural occurrance. Basically cooling and warming cycles happen, it’s just that the last warming cycle didn’t follow 100 years of man belching carbon into the sky. So we’re not the cause per se, but we’re not bystanders either.
To me saying that man is the cause of global warming plays into right wing hands. I try to steer the conversation towards what really pisses off the right and why they deny global warming, regulation. If global warming is acknowledged, what could we do about it? What are our steps? The obvious answer is regulating the industries directly involved. The ‘R’ word is what they oppose. Global warming denial has nothing to do with the science.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I recently told a colleague that opposing a candidate because you disagree with them about an issue they can’t solve (Obama/abortion) is doing your country a disservice. I’ll have to mention on monday that I oppose Palin because of creationism and see if he catches my hypocracy. Setting up wingnuts is more fun than it legally should be.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Let’s try that again.
I recently told a colleague that opposing a candidate because you disagree with them about an issue they can’t solve (Obama/abortion) is doing your country a disservice. I’ll have to mention on monday that I oppose Palin because of creationism and see if he catches my hypocracy. Setting up wingnuts is more fun than it legally should be.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I’ll have to mention on monday that I oppose Palin because of creationism and see if he catches my hypocracy.
If I may defend your hypocrisy for you, the issue isn’t the simple fact of evolution denial. The problem is what evolution denial *signifies*: the implicit disbelief in reason/the scientific method/the heritage of the Enlightenment.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
You don’t get the day off on Monday? Exactly how American are you?
She of course has the resources to resolve her belief in creationism by grasping science more firmly. I’d tell her to ask her dad the science teacher about it, but something tells me he won’t be of much help here.
I never thought of it as caused by man so much as us exacerbating a natural occurrance. Basically cooling and warming cycles happen, it’s just that the last warming cycle didn’t follow 100 years of man belching carbon into the sky. So we’re not the cause per se, but we’re not bystanders either.
There’s global warming, which occurs cyclically and naturally as you say, and then there’s anthropogenic climate change, i.e. the stuff that’s caused by people through GHG buildup and which will throw global climate all a-kilter. It’s like fire season in some woody area — every summer, a lightning strike could spark off a wildfire, but if people litter a site with kerosene doused paper towels and cigarette butts, you might as well blame them and not nature.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Matt, you’re assuming that McCain would have held it against her if he had known she doesn’t believe in global warming.
He never held it against Bush and hasn’t led on the issue other than occasionally saying he believes the scientists.
Since he’s started his “drill here, drill now” push, I’d guess they’re on exactly the same page. “Global warming? Not my problem.”
August 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
David Brooks said tonite on The NewsHour w/ Jim Lehrer that Palin isn’t a conventional conservative Republican, in part because “she talks a lot about global warming.” She may talk a lot, but on the evidence of the Newsmax interview, she doesn’t say the kind of things Brooks suggests.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Why does MattY keep doing things like this? What he describes as a “fact” and “reality” are in fact still being debated. He can say it like someone does above (”overwhelming consensus”) even if that might be overstating it, but to call it a “fact” is actually anti-scientific. In fact, it’s Lysenkoist.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
JG, I don’t follow your argument. Do you think that politicians can’t outlaw abortion? Of course a pro-life voter should vote against Obama.
Likewise, politicians can deal with the effects of climate change (will have to, in fact, regardless of whether or not it’s man made). Sooner is better in that case.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I *think* I understood that.
Actually, Lysenko was a charlatan and a fool who helped deny scientific conclusions that he didn’t like. Sound familiar?
Sure, there is a “debate” about whether global warming is happening. There is a “debate” about whether the Earth moves around the sun, about whether the Earth is hollow, etc. But the conclusion of scientists is that global warming is taking place because of human activity.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Jeffery Davis,
Aside from the 2.5% chance of the end of civilization as we know it, yeah.
This kind of mindless number-peddling is a sure sign of someone who has no real understanding of the meaning of scientific estimates of the probability different climate change scenarios. A 2.5% chance, you say. Are you sure it’s not 2.49%? Or 2.51%? Or 0.05%? Or 0.00005%?
SLC,
It is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that global warming is happening and that it is, at least in part, caused by combustion of fossil fuels, particularly coal.
But there is nothing remotely like a consensus regarding the future magnitude and effects of the warming, or what, if anything, we should do about it in the near future.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Re: However, there is still enough uncertainty in the seriousness of the situation that global warming denial is not yet on the same level as evolution denial
There’s room to deny that humans have anything to do with global warming, but no room to deny that the world has warmed appreciably over the last century or so. Yet more than a few rightwingers still persist in that denial, which is almost as batty as denying evolution– or maybe more so, since evolution is not really something we’ve witnessed and measured, whereas the warming of the last century has been.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
So of course, Mixner, we should do absolutely nothing! We’d be ridiculous to reduce our pollution output! You spew the same stuck in molasses crud that the right always does. You and your chums are simply devoid of ideas.
Somewhere earlier today I read that someone’s dad said to them in the 70’s, “Republicans stand for change. Just not now.”
August 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Mixner: But there is nothing remotely like a consensus regarding the future magnitude and effects of the warming,
If we’re speaking about the academics in this field, this is not true. However, the consensus regarding magnitude and effects is constantly adjusting to recent field research data, which suggest that we may get more magnitude and effects than previously anticipated. That’s to be expected, since we’re running a global experiment cold. However, some of the basics (coastal flooding, tropical diseases moving north, hotter summers, disruptions in rain patterns) are still in the cards.
or what, if anything, we should do about it in the near future.
Again, not true if we’re speaking about researchers.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Isn’t it possible that this is all a trap. Consider the following:
1.) Tommorrow is the last day people can contribute before McCain is limited to federal funds and this move plays well with base donors.
2.) Palin is under investigation for credible abuse of power allegations, and it is almost certain she has made false statements in the course of this investigation.
3.) Given Palin’s past disagreements with the party establishment, this move allows McCain to get his ‘maverick’ cred back, deserved or not.
4.) This move seems to be a play for alienated women voters who are bitter about HRC not being considered for the VP slot, and enables McCain to say he was willing to choose a woman for VP.
5.) It draws dems into talking about the importance of experience, and some dems into making sexist comments.
6.) It enables McCain to win the 24 hour news cycle today after a great speech by Obama.
7.) It allows the McCain campaign to instruct Palin to withdraw at a future date and win that cycle as well.
8.) It allows the McCain campaign to win a second future news cycle when they announce a new VP.
9.) By all accounts McCain and Palin have only spoken twice, briefly before today.
10.) Palin’s abuse of power investigation provides the perfect cover to have her step down
11.) Palin doesn’t believe in Dinosaurs
12.) Palin comes from a state in McCain’s column already.
13.) We’ve seen this move before with Harriet Myers, where we Dems blew up at the pick, making the next guy look like gold, even though he’s arguably more dangerous.
–> She won’t ever debate Biden
August 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Comrades: it is obvious that “Notorious P.A.T.” has been mysteriously transported into the future and is merely confused. Allow me to translate its comments back into Russian, from whence I will translate them into English so that comrades in other countries may read them:
Sure, there is a “debate” about whether [Lysenko's theories are true]. There is a “debate” about whether the Earth moves around the sun, about whether the Earth is hollow, etc. But the conclusion of scientists is that [Lysenko's theories are true].
Khorosho? Khorosho.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Once again Matt assumes that McCain gives a shit about global warming or anything else except war - which establishes once again Matt’s lack of clue.
Why should McCain care whether Palin agrees with his “official policy” about global warming when HE doesn’t give a shit about global warming? Does Matt really believe a McCain administration is going to do anything about global warming - except stimulate it with nuclear strikes on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and probably Russia and China?
Please.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:45 am
cmholm,
If we’re speaking about the academics in this field, this is not true.
Really? Show me this alleged consensus among academics in “this field,” then. And which field do you mean by “this field,” anyway? You are aware, I take it, that the potential effects of global warming involve many, many “fields” in both the natural sciences and the social sciences.
However, some of the basics (coastal flooding, tropical diseases moving north, hotter summers, disruptions in rain patterns) are still in the cards.
How much coastal flooding? How much movement of tropical diseases? How much hotter summers? How will these effects be distributed temporally and geographically? In what ways, and to what degree, will they affect human lives? “Disruptions in rain patterns” and “hotter summers,” for example, may produce both costs and benefits, depending on where they occur and how large they are. Unless you can describe these effects in more concrete and quantitative terms, you’re not really saying anything useful about them.
Again, not true if we’re speaking about researchers.
Then again, show me this alleged consensus.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Re Mixner
Mr. Mixner demands that evidence be produced that there is a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. Attached are a couple of links detailing the attitude of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) attitude about the subject. The NAS proposes that a consensus of the scientific community on global warming exists.
With regards to any scientific issue or theory, there are always individual scientists who depart from the consensus. Thus, there are scientists who do not accept the relationship between HIV and AIDS, there are scientists who do not accept big bang cosmology, there are scientists who do not accept evolution, there are scientists who do not accept the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion, there are scientists who do not accept the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, there are scientists who do not accept the heliocentric solar system, there are scientists who do not accept the efficacy of vaccines, etc. The question is, who should policy makers listen to, the consensus or the outliers?
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/publications.shtml
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
August 30th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Re: tropical diseases moving north
Tropical diseases can move north right now and have done so in the past. There was a yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia in the 1790s. St Petersburg (Russia not Florida) used to see malaria outbreaks in the summer. Cholera rampaged all over Europe and North America in the 1800s. These diseases have vanished from northern climes because northern nations are rich and technologically advanced: we purify our water, screen our windows, and care for our sick in hospitals. Miami and Honolulu are tropical enough to be at risk for, say, yellow fever and dengue, but we don’t see epidemics in those cities. It isn’t climate that’s the reason.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:51 am
This kind of mindless number-peddling is a sure sign of someone who has no real understanding of the meaning of scientific estimates of the probability different climate change scenarios. A 2.5% chance, you say. Are you sure it’s not 2.49%? Or 2.51%? Or 0.05%? Or 0.00005%?
Actually, Mixner, I understand more than that. I know that you’ve raised no objection to the idea beyond a rhetorical one. The IPCC range doesn’t divide temps into effects categories. It isn’t safe to say that if temps stay within the IPCC range that we’re ok: by the time we approach 4C, crop failures and catastrophic storms are going to increase to calamitous levels. The IPCC report is simply the most conservative reading of the science. (Richard Lindzen, the most widely-known, widely mis-labeled “skeptic”, has helped write IPCC reports.) I chose “2.5%” because the IPCC’s 95% confidence level is widely known, and because the IPCC report treats feedbacks hardly at all, there’s a strong likelihood that we’ll eventually realize temps near the top of the range and a grave possibility that we’ll exceed them. My “2.5%” is Pollyannaish.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am
There’s nothing worse than hearing the scientifically illiterate talk about scientific realities! AGW is nothing but fiction created by bad science combined with an uneducated public. I’ve been writing on and observing science for more than 20 years and suddenly I see political analysts like Tom Friedman spewing climate judgments because he gets a free ride to Greenland. Sorry, guys, that doesn’t fly.
Neither of you know enough about climate to fill a thimble and you should have the sense and humility to recognize that most basic ’scientific reality’. What we are seeing with climate is not primarily science, but propaganda, which is a lever Archimedes would be proud of. People should learn about Edward L. Bernays, nephew of Dr. Freud, who invented PR and understood that people are manipulated through their subconscious motivations and fears.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society,” Bernays argued. “Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” Edward L. Bernays
All good politicians know this instinctively. The great ones not only know it, they are able to act on it, as Hitler did. Hitler kept Bernays’ book and used it to achieve his goals exactly as Al Gore does with his ‘inconvenient’ fictions.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Re David C
All good politicians know this instinctively. The great ones not only know it, they are able to act on it, as Hitler did. Hitler kept Bernays’ book and used it to achieve his goals exactly as Al Gore does with his ‘inconvenient’ fictions.
Fucktard Mr. David C. provides not a scintilla of evidence which refutes global warming and further provides not a scintilla of evidence that he has any expertise in the subject. He merely tells us that any scientist who disagrees with him doesn’t know enough about science to fill a thimble. If we are to believe Mr. David C., the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that accepts global warming is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (and he certainly does consider that).
He also invokes Godwins’ law in comparing Al Gore with Hitler, a ludicrous assertion.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Re: the IPCC report treats feedbacks hardly at all,
There are negative feedback effects as well as positive, and the evidence suggests that these negative, damping effects are under-accounted for (since we do not see the degree of warming the models predict already). The catastrophic outcomes strike me as wildly unlikely because of this, and also the fact there’s no evidence for runaway greenhouse warming anytime in the Earth’s very long past– indeed, the planet has come far closer to catastrophic cooling than warming. This is not to advise a “do nothing” approach, because even non-catastrophic outcomes seriously disturb both the human and natural world. But preaching “we’re all doomed” induces public paralysis and risks a “cry wolf” skepticism over future dangers.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“Runaway warming” is a strawman. 4C isn’t “runaway”.
What negative feedbacks do you think are under-accounted for? Lindzen tried out the idea that clouds/water vapor would be a damping factor (the Iris Factor), but if clouds/water vapor were the magnitude required to prevent widespread AGW there would never have been Ice Ages or the great warmings we’ve seen in the geological record. The positive forcing from greenhouse gases dwarfs Milankovich forcing and the like. It’d be strange to think that a forcing 1/10th as great as AGW would have less of an effect.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:24 am
SLC,
Mr. Mixner demands that evidence be produced that there is a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming.
Keep those strawmen coming, SLC. What I asked for was evidence of a scientific consensus on (1) the future magnitude and effects of the warming, and (2) what, if anything, we should do about it in the near future.
If you think there is a consensus on either of these issues, then show me evidence of that consensus. Predictably, neither of the links you provide suggests there is any consensus on either issue. There is a consensus that warming is occurring and that it is very likely to be primarily caused by human activities, but that is not the claim of consensus I disputed. You really need to read more carefully.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:38 am
Jeffery Davis,
I know that you’ve raised no objection to the idea beyond a rhetorical one.
The objection to your absurd claim that scientists have assigned a clear numerical probability of 2.5% to “the end of civilization” from global warming is not a rhetorical one. It speaks to your fundamental scientific illiteracy.
The IPCC report is simply the most conservative reading of the science.
More nonsense. IPCC reports attempt to provide the most accurate description of the current state of climate science. Your claim that they present a conservatively-biased description of the science is a fantasy.
My “2.5%” is Pollyannaish.
No, you are delusional. The idea that we should accept your ignorant opinion of the probability of catastrophic warming over the consensus view of hundreds of professional climate scientists is just laughable. For an encore, you’ll probably be telling us that scientists are wrong about evolution too.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:22 am
There’s no global warming on Mars, so Mixner doesn’t care. He’s a joke. Ignore him.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/06/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
September 1st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Regarding Jeff Davis Sayings:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
However, there is still enough uncertainty in the seriousness of the situation.
Aside from the 2.5% chance of the end of civilization as we know it, yeah.
—————————————————
Well we all know 37.5% of all statistics you read on the internet are made up. So don’t believe that 2.5% statement, what’s his source for that non-sense.
By the way I made up the 37.5% one, too.
Remember there are lies, damn lies and then statistics.
Maybe this global warming will save us from the next ice age (which would be far worse on mankind - and is supposed due in 500 to a 1000 years). They seem to occur every 10,000 years or so but we don’t know why.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
A gentleman at work quoted his wife (who is pursuing a PhD. in Sustainability) as saying that she had attended a lecture where the speaker admitted that the temperatires and the use of fossil fuels don’t add up as being the primary cause of global warming. Why is this so hard to believe? We already know that in the past two thousand years there have been warm and cold periods (12th century was warm, Little ice age) that never corresponded with the use of fossil fuels. Do we have an impact on global warming? Well, sure, but humanity is not the prime mover of global temperatures and never has been before. Just common sense, but if you’re intent on attacking the lady for accepting the VP nomination, I suppose any excuse will do. Here’s one for you: I think her glasses are too big. That ought to be good for enough vicious attacks that will last two or three news cycles.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Yes, ice ages come and go, but never in the history of the planet have those natural climactic fluctuations been accompanied by a doubling of GHGs. Ice cores show that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any time in the past 600,000 years. The polar ice is melting. Huge chunks of Antarctica have broken away totally unexpectedly. And the IPCC estimates ARE conservative because China objected to stronger language. I know this because a colleague of mine is a lead chapter author for the recent IPCC report. Yes, there are a lot of uncertainties (the Earth is a big system, but a lot is known, and climate change is real, like it or now. But aside from immense amount of data supporting anthropogenic climate change as a reality there is this: Fossil fuels will run out. Reasonable people can argue about when, but it will happen. And peak oil has probably already passed. Fossil fuels are filthy, “clean” coal is a myth, and an economy built on cheap oil (like ours) is by definition unsustainable. So deny all you want, but the moment (era?) of reckoning isn’t far off. It’s not going to affect this generation, but our kids had better learn to live rough. Congratulations to all you nutters who continue to hide your heads in the sand.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
WOW, what a waste of time trying to actually discuss global warming! Arguing about whether the overwhelming number of scientists are telling the truth when they write and present evidence that their scientific research does indeed show that man is adding to and excelerating global warming, or that they are just phonies making it all up and partaking in a vast consricpy to impede economic growth by man. Isn’t it obvious by now that person’s who don’t believe global warming is helped along rather handily by man will never ever change their mind about just about anything based on scientific evidence, that they will always just find somebody else that agrees with their initial belief and feed off each other’s ignorance and stupity? I have a few friends who are elated by and rely on medical science to literally maintain their lives, and science to create, store and transport power, among other things, but adamently deny that carbon dating is science, rather that it’s a bunch of hooey, a hoax, because they know it’s wrong because they know that man and dinasour lived at the same time, side by side - everything on earth was created in seven days and nights. How can you discuss or argue that? Whatever. Better just to let them be, don’t bother wasting your time.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I want to clear something up about “global warming” — whatever you might think about Sarah Palin.
By definition, the phenomenon referred to by climatologists as “global warming” is man-made (anthropogenic). If one denies a linkage between long term warming changes and human activity, one denies that reductions in industrial and consumptive CO2 (and other greenhouse emissions) will produce postive climate changes. This is key. If global warming is not man made, it may not exist at all, and to the extent it does, it will not be corrected by reductions in man made carbon dioxide emissions.
It should be pointed out that there is a global scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic. Those who argue otherwise, as Sarah Palin does, are thus placed in opposition to scientific understanding. Such people cannot be expected to support any regulation, law, or even moral suasion that would seek to reduce greenhouse emission.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:13 am
My biz partner is a creationist and Bible literalist as well as lots of other much more defensible and yes, better, things. He sent me to a newish creationist website selling a big Creation Museum funded by some GOP benefactor or other. It has cave-people frolicking - carefully we presume - alongside dinosaurs and other dicey evidentiary proof of Biblical versions.
I was memorably sidetracked by a brilliant piece of theatre carried out by a couple of comedians who invented an illness “Asbergers Syndrome by Proxy” as part their piece on the opening ceremony: A wheelchair-bound handicapped person and his caregiver, complete with a stuffed pet dinosaur that was also born again, whatever that means for pet dinosaurs. Mrs. Palin’s guiding theme is Bible literalism. It is pure dogma and it sets us back, literally, centuries in dealing with other religious extremists. Yes, you know who.
An excruciatingly funny angle on a seriously damaging issue. Full credit to the religious zealots for all their politically-correct humanity in interacting (or should I say getting intercoursed) with politically incorrect comedians frolicking amongst overfunded theocratic inanity. Bible literalism in a Commander-in-Chief. No thinks. Oops. I think I mean no thanks. We are all Georgians? Only in GA.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I’ll have to mention on monday that I oppose Palin because of creationism and see if he catches my hypocracy
October 27th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Ask yourself how much Co2 released into the atmosphere annually is man-made? 50%…30%… Co2 emissions from man made sources amount to about 1% of the total Co2 emissions by the planet annually. The planet’s 99% is mostly due to the bio-mass. Some sources I found estimate the figure as high as 3-5% but the majority I have found say 1%. At best I think mankind as a whole could reduce our output of Co2 by maybe 25%. I think most people would agree this figure is a little optimistic. Considering last I have heard, with all the effort so far, is the US has only kept the Co2 emissions stagnant. And with China growing now with not much regard for Co2 emissions, I think 25% is very optimistic world wide. So 25% of, lets go with the high end, 5% is 1.25% of the total planet and man-made Co2 emissions annually. After about 80 years of a 1.25% reduction of Co2 emissions it will be like only 79 years of Co2 emissions have been released. Will this make a difference? I wanted to find out if we could really make a difference in our Co2 emissions. I believe we can and should reduce man-made Co2 emissions, we should be mindful of our actions. But we don’t contribute enough to the total Co2 annually to make a meaningful reduction; we only contribute 5% at most. An optimistic reduction to 3.75% annually doesn’t seem like enough to make a difference. I would think the planet’s Co2 emission total fluctuates at least 1% from year to year on its own. Regardless if the planet is warming on it’s own or if we are causing it, we shouldn’t add to the problem. Do we really have to agree and believe in the cause to think the solution is a good idea?
January 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Follow the money… Co2 is a product of a warming planet, not the other way around. How come “Global Warming” as we know it today, was defined based on the opinion of 52 scientists… yet the over 650 scientists dissenting the theory of man-made global warming is so easily dismissed. In December 2007 a minority report was sent to the US Senate. I suggest all the rigid believers of man-made global warming read it. Global Warming should be a scientific arguement not a political one! I see Obama read it! NOT!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=2471030&CFTOKEN=65419979
January 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Sent in December of 2008 (I meant)
March 1st, 2009 at 5:27 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
sopy ozhcb yfgrnsa eidozmsx ngtuscjp mefuxptno etfkgsh
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:23 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra