[ RadSafe ] Re: Global Warming

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Jess, you make several statements that simply are not true, but lets focus on just one, the 
main idea of this thread:
> 
> What's the worst we can do? Clean things up a little?
> 
On your next paycheck, take out two hundred dollars ($200) in cash, get a lighter, and burn 
that cash completely to ashes.  Do it every month for the rest of your life.  Now tell me please 
how is that different from spending a bunch of money reducing CO2?  Even true believers in 
AGW who can't face the realities of ClimateGate, even they say we'll only get about 0.5 
degree benefit, and I promise you that nothing gets cleaner when it has less CO2.  

I'll say it again: CO2 is not pollution and its not dirty, so we won't be cleaning anything except 
your wallet.  Here's the president, back in January 2008, before anybody thought the 
economy might be headed for hole we are in now:

    "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily 
    skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, 
    you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to 
    retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to 
    consumers."

That $200 I mentioned above is just the beginning.  The Waxman-Markey bill will raise 
electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, gas prices 74%, natural gas prices 55%.  
The bill is projected to cost the average US family over $3000 per year.  And how about jobs? 
wouldn't it be nice to have more of those when the unemployment rate is 10%?  What's going 
to happen when we make it more expensive for businesses to operate in the US?  Isn't that 
going to make China and India increasingly attractive?  They've said repeatedly that they 
won't implement the provisions of the treaty.

Finally, remember that we will be spending all this money even though we know the earth is 
cooling, not warming.  But don't take my word for it!  I might be a lying climate scientist.

-Gary Isenhower



On 7 Dec 2009 at 21:27, Jess Addis wrote:

Sun spots astounding? 

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut
2004.p df

When I looked for Danish research I found this. I'm sure you can find
stuff to counter anything anyone else can come up with, but never
less:

"Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen published an article in
Science claiming a "strikingly good agreement" between solar cycle
lengths (that is, the fluctuating lengths of the cycles undergone by
the number of sunspots) and northern hemisphere land temperatures.
....

Today, more data have become available, which shows properly filtered
solar cycle lengths....

Now the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which
drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. 

Nevertheless, the authors and other researchers keep presenting the
old misleading graphs and data."

Their data have been included in Danish textbooks and remains there.  

Just sayin'

It may be time to ban myself from this discussion. This may be a
little more political than it should be - maybe? 

I am a skeptic and I don't belong to any religion, and certainly not
that of Global Warming.


India, China and the U.S. have agreed to sit down and talk this over.
There is money to be made in "green Tech".  I'd expect we here in the
good ole USA are in a good position to be at the forefront of that
technology.  It's the next "bubble".

What's the worst we can do? Clean things up a little?

No, we won't ruin our economy.  If our economy could sustain the
assault that Wall Street, the captains of industry, and the forces
that champion our government have put on it (both parties), and even
they weren't able to destroy it over the last few years, it must be
almost indestructible.

Of course YRMV. 

I really do appreciate what I have learned here and this discussion
has peaked my interest on the subject.  Thanks for that.

And PS:  I am a BIG proponent of nuclear power production and I'm
somewhat excited over new designs and technology. For cars: Battery
tech. and something that marries a battery with something like an
ultra compositor sounds nice.  Making electricity to make hydrogen and
putting that into a fuel cell to make electricity and turning that
into mechanical? - not so much. 

OK, I ban myself from further discussion.

Jess Addis