Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:
…
* Well I don’t actually know how they work at IPCC or any other climate change research center, because I don’t work there, but I would believe that there can be disgruntled employees everywhere. If some scientist was turned down, and is screaming “Global Conspiracy” all over the media, then that is his problem. Otherwise if they are falsifying data, or perpetuating a fraud I don’t see a problem with anyone going to court about it.

** It is really strange to me that you see data manipulation on this chart.
http://tinypic.com/r/2mwidd/4
Whatever the range/scale you select it will stay exponential. Of course you can say that there is some margin or error there, or that data was altered. But then this is EVIDENCE, just take it to court and bye-bye global warming perpetrators.

Edit: Economy is also mostly based on fossil fuels. Is this chart linear as well?
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1254091224089&chddm=493051&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0

*** I did not try to quote any real numbers here. My only assumption is that the heat is accumulating. And while the temperature is not changing, melting ice can indicate that heat is accumulating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage#2008

**** So do you think it makes sense to discuss Cap & Trade in the context that global warming is a scam? In my opinion if global warming is not real then cap & trade does not make sense, and we can happily burn fossil fuels, well at least until drinking water and oxygen prices are still affordable. Of course free energy (from renewable sources) might sound attractive, but I would love to wait until new technology is available and prices drop instead of paying now for 20 years in advance.

*Employees are not involved/the issue. There is no “IPCC research center” as such. These are people with day jobs that just happen to be fat and happy because of AGW alarmism, who submit papers for massaging and editing by the IPCC (WHICH IS A POLITICAL AGENCY of the UN). They do, I suppose, get paid for participation in the IPCC charade, but it’s the long-term economic and political benefits that are “drivers”–plus professional prestige and clout.
** There is no evidence that it is exponential. There are trends in temperature of various durations, and over the longest spans they go up and down like a yo-yo. The “current” temperature rise does not match in pattern or intensity anything to do with human activity (e.g., three decades of cooling immediately after CO2 production took off about 1940). So altering human activity should not be expected to affect the trend in either direction. And, again, and fundamental: 0.4% takes a century or two to double, linear or exponential. And the models have ZERO validity at even fractions of such time spans. So why make hugely damaging and expensive decisions based on them?

As far as economic exponential growth, just wait till FF kicks in. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet!
*** The evidence for melting ice is dubious at best, especially considering the trends in the Antarctic, which is overwhelmingly larger as a non-floating ice store than the Arctic. Temperature trends in the Southern Hemisphere have turned sharply downwards. AND NONE OF THIS IS DUE TO CO2, much less anthropogenic CO2. Wind patterns driving the ice pack out of the Arctic and into the Atlantic were responsible for the bulk of the ice change there so beloved by the AGW alarmists. This is a weather pattern that occurs for unknown reasons a few times every few centuries.
**** Paying now for (non-existent) benefits 20, 50, and 100 years in advance is what C-a-T is all about. The “best case” time lags for even miniscule changes are many decades.
BTW, the most rabid of the AGW activists are demanding 80% reductions in CO2 production by 2050. Without FF, that would take us back to living standards from the 1800s, and probably also population levels from then. Which they’re quite OK with.