The bulk of our CO2 emissions occurred after 1950

Not completely true, it would be better to say the bulk of our co2 emissions occurred after 1880 (as they did). A large chunk occurred immediately during the 1880’s then decreased significantly (onset of centralized electricity, increased use of hydroelectric, decrease of coal heating in individual housing, decrease of clear cutting through crop and forest burning, decrease of rampant forest fires due to man, decrease in home burnings etc) however, we also provided the impetus for much of the worlds carbon release. It then increased to the 1930’s when it was at it’s height in terms of per person CO2 then stagnated until the eighties and has generally increased again. Per person we would have most recently overcome carbon production at it’s height in the thirties. In terms of actual release we have been stagnant in terms of carbon release with the greatest increase from China and other third world countries. Notably the easing of emission standards on vehicles happens the same year our emissions greatly increased

The exploration of the Northwest Passage by the British during the 19th century was initiated by observation of a massive melting of the ice cap taking place around Greenland and the Bering Sea; icebergs were observed as far south as 40 degrees latitude from the breakup

A melt which was caused by a normal warm up period in the earths climate at the end of the little Ice age events that naturally would have caused great scientific and commercial interest but at the time they could not find a true passage.

Roald Amundsen was not a fraud however his traversing the Northwest passage is somewhat fraudulent in the basic understanding of what it means to traverse by boat, as he did not by his own means exactly. For one, anyone who studies and plots his course will note that the ice, more than anything, allowed for the passage of his boats. That’s right two, not one. He had his seal boat, and used a secondary local boat for ice chipping and tugging. As the ice spread from points across the arctic you will note the speed of which they move can be incredibly fast, faster than Greenlands glacier at 4 miles per year. he was stuck in the ice for three years of winters. Even at it’s thickest, the British estimated the closed portion of the passages only accounted for 15 miles of water covered by the ice sheet. While 3 years would only traverse 12 miles an ice chipper and sled dogs would help for the rest. But the accounts of some of his crew mates cannot be ignored who say he actually lifted his boat out of the water at times speeding it (slowly) along over the ice. Did he really cross completely via water and the power of his own vessel: No, and that is historical fact.

It has to do with honest evaluation of a growing body of evidence supporting the claim that the climate is not sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2. I’ve already provided some support for this, but in particular you should search for information regarding NASA’s Aqua satellite.

Here is an interesting article regarding the Aqua Satelite
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

notice they say “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.” but they also say “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

And to quantify it they use the measurement of the amount of water vapor feedback specifically “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere”

There is zero observable evidence that humans are causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap. If you know of some, feel free to post it here. Please note that evidence showing that the ice cap is shrinking does not prove anything about the cause.

corollary to Occam’s razor principle in science comes to mind concerning Carbon increases and warming increases. Without adding any assumptions you can justifiably say that both are increasing as observed. We know that increased temperature does melt permafrost resulting in increased CO2, therefore temperature change causes CO2 increases, however we also know that humans release a vast amount of CO2 through burning of collected fossil fuels. That is just one of the many sources of carbon in the air. I can’t recall all of the various sources but let’s say they are twenty. The nature of the planet is such that when carbon is released at one point it also has a sink at another point. For instance the carbon sink in the ocean or the carbon sink in the perma frost. Humans are also a vast carbon sink, the very existence of animals is a carbon sink. Carbon sinks generally are solid or liquid in nature (back to chem 101 so no arguing semi state here) Let’s call all carbon sinks on land solid. By burning the solid we decrease solid carbon and increase a greater amount of CO2.

There are a variety of tests to show that CO 2 increases temperature when present. For instance. In a field test of CO2s forcing nature (from College Physical Chemistry at Purdue) we can observe that an increased amount of CO2 in a closed or semi open system will increase the relative temperature related to the total forcing. Or put better in three tubes, each filled with a steady mix of air, when heat is applied temperature increases to a maximum at a certain rate and is decreased at a certain rate when the heat source is removed. When Co2 is increased in one tube and decreased in another we can see that as the heat source is applied the temperature quickly increases in the first and somewhat less than the standard in the other. When mixed with a heat source increased CO2 increases the rate of temperature change. Now in that feedback loop from NASA we know that the forcing (the sun) hits increased CO2 (the catalyst) which then increases heat which increases vapor which is a natural feedback. While not saying Carbon is a forcing on the planet, it is a catalyst. In a reaction a catalyst increases the speed of said reaction or can decrease the negative output of other forcings. Or it could also be the limiting reagent in some chemical equation that we yet understand. Humans are observably increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore humans are observably increasing a catalyst to the water vapor feedback loop. the water vapor feedback loop has been observed to increase temperature. temperature change increases the speed at which ice caps melt, making the length of time the ocean is covered more limited each year that carbon above a sinkable amount is released. In fact there is no valid way to say that recent ice melt is not directly due to anthropogenic causes. However anthropogenic ice melt may be the only effect of the increased carbon in the air, as we don’t really have a firm grasp of dissipation of CO2 and longterm effects of increased CO2 and really CO2 is less a factor in climate change than some other greenhouse gases like methane, which is a very scary greenhouse gas. One molecule has ten times the impact that one molecule of CO2 does.

I’m not targeting plumber bob for his statements as I don’t agree entirely with climate change theory, or at least have my reservations. But more valid disagreements regarding climate change come from the sun cycle, the maunder minimum and its cycle, planetary heat change, disposition of fresh water and the decrease of fresh water (which is also anthropogenic) and personally my favorite is the lunar position theories. All of which have some valid points and impressive credentials working towards proving. Then there is the increase of methane due to solar collection but that theory seems pretty bogus so far.

What your shallow, unthinking recitation of DNC talking points about Reagan and Clinton have to do with the discussion, I cannot fathom. Again, this is not the topic of conversation here, so I’ll only ask you reflect on the bromide you should have learned back in 6th grade civics, “Congress holds the purse strings.”

No distortions about the great depression. All true and facts to back em up. You in post 229 claimed that there is nothing we could do economically to fix the issue of climate change. I just made the argument that cosnervatives such as yourself have no credibility on economics. And “most” economist agree that Roosevelt policies helped get us out of the depression. Smoot-Hawley wasn’t a Roosevelt policy. Like all conservatives, you just try to re-write history or what people say. But that wasn’t the only time the U.S. created stimulus to boost the economy. Clinton did it and what did we get in the 90’s? The biggest economic boom in history. And Clinton didn’t need to invade a country to do it.

But hey, don’t listen to economist, look for yourself and research it.

1934 unemployment rate – 25%
1937 unemployment rate – 14%
1938 unemployment rate – 19%
1944 unemployment rate – 1%

The stale and worn out argument that Roosevelts policies prolonged the depression just have nothing to back them up. At the end of the 1800’s we had a 20 year depression. They used laissez-faire principles to attack the depression. Just let it run it’s course and it will be over in no time…… Problem is it lasted 20 years. Now, I’m no math wiz, but 20 years seems longer then 10 years.

If you really don’t believe the science of the greenhouse effect, then there is no point in trying to convince you. Conservatives will only believe what the party platform tells them to.

Here is a guide for those who misrepresent the science.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

And no DNC talking points here. I research this all by myself to come up with my own conclusions. The only one making false statements or using talking points seems to be you.

Plumb Bob. Nice work.

Says the racist troll

Plumb Bob. Nice work.

Says the racist troll

What your shallow, unthinking recitation of DNC talking points about Reagan and Clinton have to do with the discussion, I cannot fathom. Again, this is not the topic of conversation here, so I’ll only ask you reflect on the bromide you should have learned back in 6th grade civics, “Congress holds the purse strings.”

how exactly does a green economy impair the well-being of the U.S.?

If such a thing occurred by way of consumer and producer choices, it would probably not impair our well-being at all. However, that’s not what’s being considered. What’s being considered is forcing the US toward a green economy by artificially jacking the price of electricity through the stratosphere. Common sense should tell you that if you raise the price of something everybody uses in large quantities without changing any other variable, you necessarily shrink the sales of everything else by exactly that much. Therefore, GDP will drop by exactly the amount we raise the price of electricity.

A carbon tax is exactly that, only it affects more than just the price of electricity. It’s going to demolish our productive capacity.

The problem with your argument is that there is plenty of proof and a vast majority of climatologist agree that humans are causing it.

There is zero observable evidence that humans are causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap. If you know of some, feel free to post it here. Please note that evidence showing that the ice cap is shrinking does not prove anything about the cause.

The claim that a “vast majority” say humans are the cause, was never really true, but it was a lot closer to being true in the 1990s. Times change, science makes progress, and people change their opinions. Today, thousands of scientists dispute it, and their disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with Fox News. It has to do with honest evaluation of a growing body of evidence supporting the claim that the climate is not sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2. I’ve already provided some support for this, but in particular you should search for information regarding NASA’s Aqua satellite.

Showing a picture of Los Angeles smog is hardly an argument relevant to the ice cap. Humans did cause LA smog; that wasn’t part of a natural cycle. Humans then solved it by improving auto technology. If humans did not cause the shrinking of the ice cap, it’s unlikely that we can cause it to grow, either — granting for the moment that making it grow would be a good thing, which is doubtful.

The Northwest Passage being open is just another way of saying the north polar ice cap is shrinking. I have not disputed this, I’ve simply said man is not the cause.

The exploration of the Northwest Passage by the British during the 19th century was initiated by observation of a massive melting of the ice cap taking place around Greenland and the Bering Sea; icebergs were observed as far south as 40 degrees latitude from the breakup. While formal measurement of the ice cap extents has been possible only since satellites have been able to photograph it (about 30 years), it’s clear that growing and shrinking of the ice cap is normal, and took place long before man began emitting CO2. There is no reason to believe that the current extent of the ice cap is abnormal, nor that observed changes in global temperatures are abnormal.

And just for the sake of your education, the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen first made the successful voyage through the Northwest Passage in 1905. I think what you mean is that the passage is now open for shipping. I’ve heard that it was also open for shipping in 1945, but could not find corroboration. The bulk of our CO2 emissions occurred after 1950.

Same with attempting to save the ice caps by reducing carbon emissions. If carbon emissions isn’t melting them, then reducing emissions won’t affect the ice caps, and the money we spend trying to reduce carbon emissions is all wasted.

The problem with your argument is that there is plenty of proof and a vast majority of climatologist agree that humans are causing it.

Again, we can’t do anything about this?
http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/smog_losangeles_jul02.jpg

Ships have been trying to get throught the northwest passage for centuries, yet the first time anyone got through it was just recently.

The only people who don’t believe humans are causing it are fox news viewers. Everyone else is pretty much in agreement. I mean first you guys claim the climate change wasn’t happening, now that there is proof, the claim is that humans are not causing it. Your already starting the next claim, “It’s here and there is nothing we can do about it”. At one time the world was flat and there was no way we could ever get off this rock. Nothing is impossible.

Don’t you realize that cosnervatives will take the opposite side on any issue? No matter how dumb it sounds….

Some history and numbers for you.

Reagan: 2 trillion dollar debt increase = 16 million jobs
Clinton: 1.5 trillion dollar debt increase = 22 million jobs

What was the difference between these 2? Reagan cut taxes for the rich and Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Republicans are just not credible on economics anymore. That and a Democratic budget during the Clinton years balanced the budget and gave us a surplus. If it were not for the Bush tax cuts, we could have been out of debt by now. Being fiscally responsible means paying your bills, cutting taxes doesn’t pay the bills.

Laissez Faire in the 1920’s created the great depression. FDR spent lots of money and halfed the unemployment by 1937. In 1938 the republicans made him cut back spending and balance the budget, unemployment went back up to 20%. It took the biggest spending spree in history (WW2) to finally get out of the depression.

I know conservatives like to re-write history, but this is how it went. Like it or not.

and climate change……
http://www.criacc.qc.ca/assets/smogQue0502.JPG

I guess that smog is liberal media bias huh? All natural………

You would think the ice caps melting would be an eye opener.

If humans are not causing the melting, then there’s no point even worrying about the ice caps, because we can’t control them. And whether you want to believe scientists or not, they’re rapidly coming to the conclusion that humans are not causing the ice caps to melt.

We could spend $7 trillion over the next 30 years to produce reliable rain cloud generators, too. All the farmers would love that. Problem is, we can’t control the formation of rain clouds, so the money would be wasted.

Same with attempting to save the ice caps by reducing carbon emissions. If carbon emissions isn’t melting them, then reducing emissions won’t affect the ice caps, and the money we spend trying to reduce carbon emissions is all wasted.

Science that is bought and paid for by Exxon Mobil. WSJ has lowered itself to the standards of it’s new owner, News Corp.

Sure thing, mook. Where’d you get that from, the ads in Mother Jones?

If you want to understand where the “bought and paid for” science is coming from, ask yourself what happens when governments of the world suddenly dump $50 billion into hiring scientists to produce climate studies, creating previously-unheard-of 6-figure salaries for government-employed scientists — but the scientists can only keep their 6-figure incomes if their results say humans are causing climate change.

Of course, the $10,000 blind contribution by Exxon’s Corporate Social Responsibility unit is more than enough to offset that effect. Right?

Inhofe may be biased, but at this particular moment, science is on his side.

Your kidding right? This is a guy who believes in creationism. And his studies that he produces, check the people in his studies…… Business owners, economist, construction, etc. Not one climatologist.

You would think the ice caps melting would be an eye opener. Guess they will wait until we are all dead before they concede defeat.

In reality, where these mooks apparently use their brains only as hair stands, when the government raises $200 billion in taxes to spend on incentives, and electric utilities raise $150 billion in capital to build plants, that capital comes from somewhere, and in fact gets diverted from other economic uses. So the chances are, for every job that gets created by the spending they mention, there’s one being lost elsewhere in the economy because there’s no capital available, perhaps more or less depending on the sector.

If you want to understand why spending jillions to build shiny new high-tech electrical plants doesn’t really stimulate the economy, ask yourself why it won’t work to stimulate the economy if we just break all the windows in all the businesses in America. I mean, they’d have to spend jillions to replace all those windows, right? They’d have to hire lots and lots of workers, truckers, ramp up glass factories, and so forth, right? So, why is that not a great idea for stimulating the economy?

The answer, in case you haven’t grasped it instantly, is that instead of replacing perfectly good glass just to get back to where we were, we could have been building new factories, digging new mines, building new houses, and so forth, all of which add to our wealth. Instead of creating wealth with all that money, we had to use it to replace wealth that was wasted.

Same thing with forcing utilities to spend jillions on new plants: instead of increasing wealth, we’re replacing it. There’s an opportunity cost of capital, and if we use it to build redundant plants, it’s wasted.

And then, there’s the other problem they seem to have ignored in the U Mass study: artificially jacking electricity prices high enough that expensive alternatives actually become economically attractive. Doing this necessarily causes GDP to decline. Why? Because we’re all paying more money for exactly the same amount of product. This means we have less to spend on other things. All other things being equal, if product stays the same but demand for product drops (because there’s less available for things other than electricity), then prices drop, sales drop, and GDP drops. But the U Mass study completely ignores this effect.

Heck, you can just look at their results and conclude that they’re pulling numbers out of dark places; they assert right up in the Executive Summary that clean-energy plants employ three workers for every one worker employed by oil, gas, or coal plants. Anybody who knows how labor-intensive coal mining is, knows that has to be wrong. Besides, if we replace coal plants with solar or wind, the steel is probably going to come from China, so any jobs that get created will go to Chinese workers.

I don’t know anything about Ben Bergman, who wrote the article here, but I suspect he ought read more than just the Executive Summary of the research he posts here, and he ought to read news more critically, rather than simply accepting it because it helps him win a round of discussion.

Science that is bought and paid for by Exxon Mobil. WSJ has lowered itself to the standards of it’s new owner, News Corp.

There has existed no observable evidence supporting the claim that humans are causing climate change since the ice core data proved that global CO2 is driven by temperature and not the other way ’round, which was determined in about 2002. Since then, the only evidence supporting the claims of human-caused warming has been from models; and the returns from NASA’s Aqua satellite have pretty thoroughly put paid to that source of evidence, since it’s abundantly clear that rising CO2 produces negative feedback in the form of cloud cover, but all the models assume that CO2 produces positive feedback. That explains the exodus from the anthropogenic warming bandwagon reported here.

Inhofe may be biased, but at this particular moment, science is on his side.

For you personally…eat feces and bark at the moon jack!

O boy, the socialist charge. You ever read the constitution?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution says that if Pennsylvania pays 200 billion in taxes and Maryland pays 100 billion in taxes, they are both entitled to 150 billion from the federal government. That would mean 50 billion of Pennsylvania tax money would goto Maryland……. That is socialism. Our founding fathers wrote this document….. Why do you oppose our founding fathers?

BTW, Tax Credits and subsidies for corporations that don’t pay taxes is corporate socialism. Why is it you support socialism for the rich?

Your poll said that 40% of americans consider themselves conservative. If that were true then Obama wouldn’t be president. You are just a prime example of conservatives dumbing down america so they can just fear/hatemongering people into a vote.

I got something that will stump you for a while. What was the last republican president to lower taxes on the middle class :)

First climate change wasn’t real, then it wasn’t man-made. Now we are back to it isn’t real.

When a conservative reads up on the greenhouse effect, they call it “liberal media bias”. When all else fails, blame the media. Notice Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is blaming the media in his country. He is a conservative……