Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

189 posts / 0 new
Last post
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Excerpts from a speech by Tom Deweese, full transcript here

I believe the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation.

America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of “saving the environment.”

Many in America attempt to fight against one issue or another as they try to understand what is happening to their country. But most fail to see the whole picture and are being crushed under a well organized “divide and conquer” tactic that keeps them reeling from crisis to crisis.

We’ve been terrorized into accepting that human society was on the brink of extinction because of man-made global warming. We’ve been warned that, unless we take drastic action to reverse it – then islands will disappear, whole cities will be destroyed and polar bears will drown. 

If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming, and in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.

I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist.  Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, “It’s the Sun, stupid.”  Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Navel Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.”

Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”  In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That’s 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists.

Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore’s Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom.  Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.

An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs.  The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun.  That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame. Hurray! The nation should be rejoicing.

We can drill American oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy will help restore the Detroit auto industry and all of those jobs. And it will help us to stop funding terrorists. What’s not to like about drilling American oil? 

That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say.  That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Capitol Hill to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria.  That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, with more taxes, and more rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees – all in the name of man-made Global Warming – which doesn’t exist.

…And that silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gore’s lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lies and changing our way of life. “Going Green” is the mantra of the day. None of them are about to change any of these policies, simply to accommodate a few inconvenient scientific facts. 

Why do they continue to promote a lie? Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It’s nothing more than the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services [bold emphasis by me].  In fact, the most important debate in the history of the United States is about to begin – it’s the battle over a completely new economic system based on Climate Change called Cap and Trade.  It should be called Tax and Trade as it will force up the price of every item created or run by energy from gasoline to toothpaste to natural gas to hotel rooms, as we sit in our cold, dark homes.

Cap and Trade will throw out the old system of a free market based on goods and services and operate on the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. Instead of money, wealth will be determined by how many government-issued emission permits you own to allow you to operate your business.  In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole .  During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it.

But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment – and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning — all in the name of protecting the planet.  It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it. 

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.

What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.  The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. One outlined in a UN soft-law document called Agenda 21, first revealed at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992. The working name is Sustainable Development.

Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis.  But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake. 

Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.

If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.” 

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.” 

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped — even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established – and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.

That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.

 Science, like economics, has been hi-jacked and used as a tool to take our liberties and make us more subservient to unaccountable groups like the UN and the Biulderbergs.  Soon it will be equivalent to "terrorism" if one actively works to debunk Al Gores pseudo science.  This is just another step in stripping away our national sovereignty - one world government based on a very old feudal world system.

Larry

RSLCOUNSEL's picture
RSLCOUNSEL
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 41
Thought I would put my Czar humor here to lighten up a little

 

The US government has 15 "Czars" in the executive branch ("Car Czar", "Compensation Czar", etc.). I would much prefer "Car Pope" or "Compensation Pope" so we could presume some degree of infallibility when they speak Ex Cathedra.

Speaking of infallibility. If "we learn from our mistakes", don't you think that failure is too important to leave to chance?
 

tedbits.blogspot.com/2009/06/we-need-failure-czar.html   to read the rest.... ENJOY!

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

 

Hi Larry;

I've got a copy of the UN publication,  Agenda 21:  The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, and I can confirm that its contents are every bit as insidious as this article alleges.  Anyone who wants to obtain a copy can do so from the UN web site, or you can read it online, here:  http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm.  For those without the time to plow through this tome, let me tell you that it is an incredibly boring document, with lots of new age mumbo-jumbo, that will glaze your eyes over long before you stumble on the passages that reveal the core of the plan:  massive depopulation of the planet.  In other passages, it clearly states that food can be validly used as a weapon.     I can't recommend it for reading, except for those who doubt the reality of the agenda. 

 

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Unfortunately, you cannot even discuss this matter on most web sites as the dumbed down sheeple indoctrinated by TPTB are so brainwashed, starting from gradeschool forward if we are talking the U.S., as to assume it is a fact of life.

There is no global warming. Natural sunspot activity controls the earth's warming and cooling cycles. Yes, some years ago that activity was up, the earth warmed up. But for about the last 10 years, that activity decreased and the earth is cooling.

I challenge anyone on the Web to show me islands being buried by thawing ice......That is so unscientific as to be laughable. I had a little science in college and I understand that when ice melts, the volume of the combination of ice and water goes down, not up. Can someone explain to me why science no longer interprets climate change but ideology does?

 

 

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2238
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jerrydon10 wrote:

Unfortunately, you cannot even discuss this matter on most web sites as the dumbed down sheeple indoctrinated by TPTB are so brainwashed, starting from gradeschool forward if we are talking the U.S., as to assume it is a fact of life.

There is no global warming. Natural sunspot activity controls the earth's warming and cooling cycles. Yes, some years ago that activity was up, the earth warmed up. But for about the last 10 years, that activity decreased and the earth is cooling.

I challenge anyone on the Web to show me islands being buried by thawing ice......That is so unscientific as to be laughable. I had a little science in college and I understand that when ice melts, the volume of the combination of ice and water goes down, not up. Can someone explain to me why science no longer interprets climate change but ideology does?

Hey man -- 

Totally separate from the issue of whether GW is "true" or not, the reason melting ice/glaciers/etc. could cause sea levels to rise is that this water (stored in the form of icepack or glaciers) is above sea level in mountain etc. (or in the higher-than-sea-level central area of Greenland).  When that ice melts, it runs downhill to the ocean.  

The amount of ice/water tied up in glaciers/above-sea-level icepack is of course less than the Arctic/Antarctic icebergs (I think) but it is still significant from a rising-sea-level POV.

Viva -- Sager

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
SagerXX wrote:

Hey man -- 

Totally separate from the issue of whether GW is "true" or not, the reason melting ice/glaciers/etc. could cause sea levels to rise is that this water (stored in the form of icepack or glaciers) is above sea level in mountain etc. (or in the higher-than-sea-level central area of Greenland).  When that ice melts, it runs downhill to the ocean.  

The amount of ice/water tied up in glaciers/above-sea-level icepack is of course less than the Arctic/Antarctic icebergs (I think) but it is still significant from a rising-sea-level POV.

Viva -- Sager

Hey Sagar:

No disrespect meant, as you are one of my favorite posters in here but I would love to get into the chemistry of this subject with someone. There are not enough glaciers in the world to raise the oceans an inch if they all melted. I would love to see the math if you think differently.

Most folks seem to think that the poles are melting and this is what will kill us. Put a gallon jug of water into your freezer and see if it contracts as some people seem to espouse. No, it will expand when frozen and your jug will bust. Freezing ice expands, thawing ice contracts. If you have a glass of ice tea in front of you and the ice melts, you will observe a lower liquid content in the glass after the ice melts, not a higher one. If the polar ice all melts the oceans will be lower, not higher. Islands will not be submerged, they will rise in sea level.

This entire GW deal is nothing more than a socialist movement for a global tax and to "spread the wealth" as Obama promised he would do. Speaking globally, it will spread the wealth from richer countries to third world countries because we are the ones with the largest "carbon footprint."

I hope the oligarchy doesn't have you hooked on this nonsense. There is no such thing as global warming and I can produce 3 scientists to your 1 that says this is not science but the ultimate of stupidy that has ever been foisted on mankind should you want to go there.

idoctor's picture
idoctor
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 4 2008
Posts: 1731
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Jerry you have got my vote on this one!!

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jerrydon10 wrote:
SagerXX wrote:

Hey man -- 

Totally separate from the issue of whether GW is "true" or not, the reason melting ice/glaciers/etc. could cause sea levels to rise is that this water (stored in the form of icepack or glaciers) is above sea level in mountain etc. (or in the higher-than-sea-level central area of Greenland).  When that ice melts, it runs downhill to the ocean.  

The amount of ice/water tied up in glaciers/above-sea-level icepack is of course less than the Arctic/Antarctic icebergs (I think) but it is still significant from a rising-sea-level POV.

Viva -- Sager

Hey Sagar:

No disrespect meant, as you are one of my favorite posters in here but I would love to get into the chemistry of this subject with someone. There are not enough glaciers in the world to raise the oceans an inch if they all melted. I would love to see the math if you think differently.

Most folks seem to think that the poles are melting and this is what will kill us. Put a gallon jug of water into your freezer and see if it contracts as some people seem to espouse. No, it will expand when frozen and your jug will bust. Freezing ice expands, thawing ice contracts. If you have a glass of ice tea in front of you and the ice melts, you will observe a lower liquid content in the glass after the ice melts, not a higher one. If the polar ice all melts the oceans will be lower, not higher. Islands will not be submerged, they will rise in sea level.

This entire GW deal is nothing more than a socialist movement for a global tax and to "spread the wealth" as Obama promised he would do. Speaking globally, it will spread the wealth from richer countries to third world countries because we are the ones with the largest "carbon footprint."

I hope the oligarchy doesn't have you hooked on this nonsense. There is no such thing as global warming and I can produce 3 scientists to your 1 that says this is not science but the ultimate of stupidy that has ever been foisted on mankind should you want to go there.

Jerry,

I'm not interested in getting into a debate about GW. However, I am curious as to what you think of this: http://suprememastertelevision.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video&wr_i...

Extract:

AT LEAST 18 ISLANDS SUBMERGED AROUND THE WORLD:
• Lohachara, India – 10,000 residents
• Bedford, Kabasgadi and Suparibhanga islands near India – 6,000 families
• Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, USA – 13 islands
• Kiribati – 3 atolls
• Half of Bangladesh’s Bhola Island permanently flooded – 500,000

Paul Tobasi – Government Representative of the Carteret Islands – It’s not their wish to go, but because of the situation; it’s forcing them to move.

ISLANDS SINKING OR AT RISK FROM RISING SEA LEVELS (over 40 nations):

Tuvalu – 12,000 residents with no more fresh drinking water and vegetable plots have washed away 

Ghoramara near India – 2/3 submerged as of 2006 with 7,000 residents already relocated

Neighboring island of Sagar – 250,000 residents also threatened

Some 50 other islands jeopardized in the India-Bangladesh Sundarbans, with a population of 2 million

Kutubdia in southeastern Bangladesh lost over 200,000 residents, with remaining 150,000 likely soon to depart

Maldives – 369,000 residents in the Indian Ocean, whose president wants to relocate the entire country

Marshall Islands – 60,000 residents

Kiribati – 107,800 residents, approximately 30 islands submerging

Tonga – 116,900 residents

Vanuatu – 212,000 residents, some of whom have already been evacuated and coastal villages relocated

Solomon Islands – 566,800 residents

Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea – 2,500 residents whose land no longer supports agriculture

Shishmaref in Alaska, USA – 600 residents

Kivalini in Alaska, USA – 400 residents

Over 2,000 other islands in Indonesia

Dubai – 1.2 million residents in the United Arab Emirates considered at risk

There may be more islands, either uninhabited and/or not reported, that have submerged or are sinking due to climate change.

President Tong of the Island Nation of Kiribati:
We may be at the point of no return; our small low lying island will be submerged.
It’s an issue of human survival.If the world community, the different countries don’t kick the Carbon habits, there will be other countries next on the line.

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2238
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jerrydon10 wrote:
SagerXX wrote:

Hey man -- 

Totally separate from the issue of whether GW is "true" or not, the reason melting ice/glaciers/etc. could cause sea levels to rise is that this water (stored in the form of icepack or glaciers) is above sea level in mountain etc. (or in the higher-than-sea-level central area of Greenland).  When that ice melts, it runs downhill to the ocean.  

The amount of ice/water tied up in glaciers/above-sea-level icepack is of course less than the Arctic/Antarctic icebergs (I think) but it is still significant from a rising-sea-level POV.

Viva -- Sager

Hey Sagar:

No disrespect meant, as you are one of my favorite posters in here but I would love to get into the chemistry of this subject with someone. There are not enough glaciers in the world to raise the oceans an inch if they all melted. I would love to see the math if you think differently.

Most folks seem to think that the poles are melting and this is what will kill us. Put a gallon jug of water into your freezer and see if it contracts as some people seem to espouse. No, it will expand when frozen and your jug will bust. Freezing ice expands, thawing ice contracts. If you have a glass of ice tea in front of you and the ice melts, you will observe a lower liquid content in the glass after the ice melts, not a higher one. If the polar ice all melts the oceans will be lower, not higher. Islands will not be submerged, they will rise in sea level.

This entire GW deal is nothing more than a socialist movement for a global tax and to "spread the wealth" as Obama promised he would do. Speaking globally, it will spread the wealth from richer countries to third world countries because we are the ones with the largest "carbon footprint."

I hope the oligarchy doesn't have you hooked on this nonsense. There is no such thing as global warming and I can produce 3 scientists to your 1 that says this is not science but the ultimate of stupidy that has ever been foisted on mankind should you want to go there.

Like I said, "leaving aside GW"...  I'm agnostic on the issue.  The guano flies so fast and thick on this issue that it has become impossible IMO to know who's fudging, who's sincere but misguided, and who has the real "truth"...  So don't worry, the oligarchs aren't camped on my porch...

As for the "ice melting in the mountains could cause oceans to rise" thing:  here's this from an article on msn.com

"How much, and how fast?  Virtually everyone agrees that the complete disappearance of the 2-mile-thick (3-kilometer-thick) Greenland Ice Sheet would cause an estimated 23-foot (7-meter) rise in global sea levels. That would inundate coastal regions around the world. At the same time, virtually everyone also agrees that even under the worst-case scenario, it would take centuries of warmer weather for Greenland's ice to disappear completely."

This from scientificamerican.com:

"But Greenland contains an ice sheet that covers 1.7 million square kilometers--an area nearly the size of Mexico--and is as much as three kilometers thick in places. If it all melted, it would raise the world's oceans by seven meters, though that is not likely to happen anytime soon."

And this from sciencemag.org:

"After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year."

My 3-dimensional math is not the strongest, so dividing 125 gigatons (metric or US tons?) by the surface area of the ocean to come up with .35 mm is not my cup of tea.  But as I said in my original post, completely aside from WHY the glacier ice is melting, is the fact that when it runs downhill and joins the ocean, the ocean level gets higher.  That was my point.  

Viva -- Sager

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jerrydon10 wrote:

Most folks seem to think that the poles are melting and this is what will kill us. Put a gallon jug of water into your freezer and see if it contracts as some people seem to espouse. No, it will expand when frozen and your jug will bust. Freezing ice expands, thawing ice contracts. If you have a glass of ice tea in front of you and the ice melts, you will observe a lower liquid content in the glass after the ice melts, not a higher one. If the polar ice all melts the oceans will be lower, not higher. Islands will not be submerged, they will rise in sea level.

Jerry,

This is an interesting, but inaccurate, analogy. If the ice in the ice tea is floating in the tea, your observation is correct. But, if the ice was outside of the tea, but the water from melting ice would drain into the ice, the level of your ice tea would rise. The same would be true of continental ice shelves.

I'm not arguing for the truth of falsehood of global warming, or ocean levels rising, just pointing out that this analogy doesn't support your argument.

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
idoctor wrote:

Jerry you have got my vote on this one!!

 

Ditto that! 

 

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Jerry - I agree with most everything you said so it will be easier to comment on my disagreement first.

Would GW cause a change in sea level?  I suspect it would and agree with Dr Peters when he said that much of the ice is stored above sea level.  As the ice melts, the volume of water stored above sea level would raise the sea level by that amount.  The other factor is that as water warms, it expands and conversely, as it cools it contracts.  This relationship may be seen by looking at a saturation table.  So we may conclude that if the oceans gain in temperature the sea level will rise and if the temperature decreases, sea level would drop.

I think the debate should be; if the planet is warming, then what percent of the cause is man-made (CO2 greenhouse effect).  For example, if that percentage is actually 10%, then is it a good investment to add burdens on productivity when the actual impact may be minuscule.  NASA recently reported that aerosols may be a much bigger contributor to global warming than CO2 and there are a number of reports which claim that sun spots are the dominant cause.

You brought up another point that must also be explored - is the planet actually cooling?  A case may be made that we are heading for another ice age - if this is true then we are wasting money and production chasing a problem that doesn't exist, which will lead us to a counterproductive strategy.  If the temperature is cooling, then we may conclude that sea level will drop which will bring an entirely different set of problems.    

So, is it warming or cooling? This seems to depend on how wide a time period you track.  Are longer trends more telling than shorter trends?

The above "4,500" year comparison makes it appear that the temperature is dropping. 

 The above "140 year" graph implies that the planet is warming.

The above "425,000" year graph makes it appear that the planet is cooling.

Larry

CB's picture
CB
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 365
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

IMO much of the public/media debate regarding AGW (anthropogenic global warming/climate change) is a combination of uninformed/misinformed/misguided stew of competing claims and counter claims. There is no conspiracy among the scientific community studying the issue to sway the debate one way or another - as opposed to corporate interests with a financial stake on one side or another who may have a self-interested agenda to pursue. The consensus amoung those studying the issue is that warming is occurring and that the observed changes fit rather well with relatively simple models that account for the effect of societies changing output of greenhouse gasses and land use patterns.

That said, we are running the experiment now and no policy change will affect the near-term outcome (what happens over the next few decades). It doesn't matter what one thinks or believes about the issue, we will find out - those of us that live long enough. The greenhouse gas inputs to the system over the past 50 years and the coming inputs over the next few years will not/cannot be affected by changes in policy or tax incentives. In 50 years we will know the answer.

It is true that the climate models are imperfect, our understanding of ocean-atmosphere interactions and feedback is incomplete, feedback from the biosphere is not well understood, no one can predict volcanic eruptions and their potential effects, it is not known exactly how the opening of the arctic ocean and melting occurring in Greenland and the Antarctic continent will affect ocean circulation and weather/climate patterns, etc, etc. Never the less, the best current models of the system predict warming and sea-level rise will continue for the foreseeable - even if all industrial activity ceased tomorrow.

Now, important the question is: given what we know and our understanding of our current situation and the needs and requirements of civil society what should we do about it and what can we do about it?

I find it more that a little ironic that on a site like this, devoted to developing a sustainable economic system, that people would go off the deep end worrying that there will be some official mandate/incentive to conserve, use wisely and more efficiently, and transition away from fossil carbon based fuels that are one of the main culprits implicated in the climate models. If one believes in peak oil, peak coal, and the generally unsustainable nature of the current industrial economy then why the angst about attempts to make a transition to a more sustainable system?

A transition to non carbon based fuels/energy, striving for increased industrial efficiency, reducing the social and environmental costs of pollution - to me these all make good economic sense - whats not to like? Lets get on with it.

Personally though, I am a cynic about the whole affair - societies have shown no capacity to effectively plan and change course on the scale required to make a difference here. Look at the economic meltdown caused by excess of self-interested corrupt inherently unsustainable policies benefitting the few at the expense of the many - one that was widely predicted by people who took a clear-eyed look at the state of affairs.  We will continue arguing and fussing and debating to no coherent outcome until events in the real world force changes upon us - that is the nature of things - empires rise and fall, wars are fought, technological change occurs and is put to use - for better or ill and on we go, and on the world will go, with or without us.

Regarding the Harris and Mann chart you posted DrKrbyLuv - it is a distorted approximation of what is known about past climate fluctuation put together by interested amateurs with a non-science based agenda. The ice-age cycle chart is not presented at an appropriate temporal scale and and lacks accuracy that would allow meaningful comparison to the present. The first warm period shown lasted ~20k years and the shortest is thousands of years, all the peaks are different in magnitude and duration and the temperature anomaly is an estimate - an approximation based on ice core data. It cannot be directly compared to the graph above showing measured temperatures over the past 150 yrs. Historical climate change is a fascinating subject but thse two folks do it a disservice.

and please don't take offense at my disagreement Dr, I enjoy your posts, just don't always agree - as is normal.

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
ccpetersmd wrote:

Jerry,

This is an interesting, but inaccurate, analogy. If the ice in the ice tea is floating in the tea, your observation is correct. But, if the ice was outside of the tea, but the water from melting ice would drain into the ice, the level of your ice tea would rise. The same would be true of continental ice shelves.

I'm not arguing for the truth of falsehood of global warming, or ocean levels rising, just pointing out that this analogy doesn't support your argument.

Of course. I'll grant that point. But much of that ice IS floating on the water. Surely you guys watch Ice Road Truckers on the History channel.

The reason I used that analogy was that the floating Arctic ice packs that one observes, on what I feel are the GW propaganda movies, always seem to be showing a boat traversing floating ice bergs with polar bears stranded on them. This scenario is bunk science as floating ice cannot increase the volume of the water it is floating in. Furthermore, I am not overlooking the glaciers in the North, either. Those glaciers, such as those over Greenland, Alaska, and northern Canada can and do melt with climate change as the Earth and Sun cascade through their cycles.

And if we look South, we will find several places in Antarctica where ice is not in the water. As this ice melts (and it does on the outer edges) it theoretically could increase volume, but does it? Nope.

In fact, as this ice melts, fresh snow falls to replace it. Where does this fresh snow come from? It evaporates from surface water into the atmosphere, mainly from the oceans.

Well, do we ever see a rhythm of nature here: Ice melts, more water is in the oceans, more water goes into the atmosphere through evaporation (because there is more water from the melting ice TO evaporate) = more snowfall to replace the melted ice.

The truth is that more than enough new ice forms this way than is needed to replace the melting ice in every ice flow and glacier in the world. Antarctic ice has been increasing since 1979:

So Sagar and Doc Peters, we don't disagree on this.

SamLinder wrote:

Jerry,

I'm not interested in getting into a debate about GW. However, I am curious as to what you think of this: http://suprememastertelevision.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video&wr_i...

Extract:

AT LEAST 18 ISLANDS SUBMERGED AROUND THE WORLD:
• Lohachara, India – 10,000 residents
• Bedford, Kabasgadi and Suparibhanga islands near India – 6,000 families
• Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, USA – 13 islands
• Kiribati – 3 atolls
• Half of Bangladesh’s Bhola Island permanently flooded – 500,000

Paul Tobasi – Government Representative of the Carteret Islands – It’s not their wish to go, but because of the situation; it’s forcing them to move.

ISLANDS SINKING OR AT RISK FROM RISING SEA LEVELS (over 40 nations):

Tuvalu – 12,000 residents with no more fresh drinking water and vegetable plots have washed away 

Ghoramara near India – 2/3 submerged as of 2006 with 7,000 residents already relocated

Neighboring island of Sagar – 250,000 residents also threatened

Some 50 other islands jeopardized in the India-Bangladesh Sundarbans, with a population of 2 million

Kutubdia in southeastern Bangladesh lost over 200,000 residents, with remaining 150,000 likely soon to depart

Maldives – 369,000 residents in the Indian Ocean, whose president wants to relocate the entire country

Marshall Islands – 60,000 residents

Kiribati – 107,800 residents, approximately 30 islands submerging

Tonga – 116,900 residents

Vanuatu – 212,000 residents, some of whom have already been evacuated and coastal villages relocated

Solomon Islands – 566,800 residents

Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea – 2,500 residents whose land no longer supports agriculture

Shishmaref in Alaska, USA – 600 residents

Kivalini in Alaska, USA – 400 residents

Over 2,000 other islands in Indonesia

Dubai – 1.2 million residents in the United Arab Emirates considered at risk

There may be more islands, either uninhabited and/or not reported, that have submerged or are sinking due to climate change.

President Tong of the Island Nation of Kiribati:
We may be at the point of no return; our small low lying island will be submerged.
It’s an issue of human survival.If the world community, the different countries don’t kick the Carbon habits, there will be other countries next on the line.

Sam, I am not arguing that sea levels relative to land masses do not change. They have been changing for billions of years and always will. But is there evidence that Carbon in the atmosphere is causing this? No, not one iota of evidence. In fact, I cannot find even logic in the argument:

Quote:

"The primary reason that the oceans are "rising" is tectonic activity causing the land masses to sink. Another contributing factor is erosion, depositing sediments on the ocean floor. But the melting of ice caps is not contributing to the rise in sea level"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_oceans_rise_if_polar_ice_caps_melt

So is the oceans rising relative to the islands or are the islands falling relative to the ocean? It seems some scientists are surprised that Hawawii is still here when contemplating the plate tectonics that govern those islands:

"In lower latitudes coral reefs build up completely capping the remnants of the sinking islands. Such caps are called "coral atolls." Ultimately, the atolls themselves may sink from view. The Big Island of Hawaii is being built right now, and, in fact, there's new land being added out to the ocean, but even all the other Hawaiian Islands in the chain, even though they're still islands are planed away, so when you drive up on a ship with a sonar you come up the side, and then there's a big flat surface, and then the island is the last little erosional remnant that hasn't been chewed away by the waves yet.

If the theory of Hawaii's formation is correct, Hawaii will drift off the hot spot in a few million years as they Pacific plate carries it away in a northwesterly direction. The mantle plume will stay where it is and eventually create a new island over itself. Indeed, a young submarine volcano dubbed "Loihi" has been discovered forming southwest of Hawaii. It rises some 8,000 feet from the sea floor but has another 3,000 feet to go before it breaks the surface and becomes a real island. Loihi should build up to the surface some time between 19,000 and 100,000 years from now. The enduring mystery is why a mantle plume, such as the one underlying Hawaii should remain in the same place for over 75 million years."

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program7%20PlateDynam...

Finally, islands can sink due to nothing more than the erosion of them via wind and rain as the first source mentioned:

"The layers of sandstone and shale exposed along the crest of the Santa Ynez Mountains, now thousands of feet above sea level, once lay several thousands of feet below the sea, and may yet lie there again, as the forces of erosion wear away at the resistant rock"

http://www.sb-outdoors.org/Interpretive/NaturalHistory/geology.php

Larry: Your information is interesting. I suscribe to the sun activity theory. The reason is that aerosols and greenhouses haven't been around that long and isn't it odd that when sunspot activity diminished around 1999, the earth began to cool?

The earth has always flucuated in temperature and always will. In fact, it hasn't been that long, relatively speaking that Ohio was a glacier.

I have to agree with Occam's Razor on this one.

 

 

 

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 538
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jerrydon10 wrote:

 

 

Freezing ice expands, thawing ice contracts. If you have a glass of ice tea in front of you and the ice melts, you will observe a lower liquid content in the glass after the ice melts, not a higher one. If the polar ice all melts the oceans will be lower, not higher. Islands will not be submerged, they will rise in sea level.

Take a 10 L bucket of water at 4 deg C

drop in a 1 kilo block of ice

Mark the water level

Wait for ice to melt and water to return to 4 deg C

Check the water level.

It will be UNCHANGED from proir to the ice melting.

Warm the water to 20 C and the level wil rise.

 

Cheers Hamish

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

After researching that, you're right, Hamish. The liquid as an entirety doesn't contract nor does it expand. But that just reaffirms my assertion that a melting Arctic ice flow cannot, scientifically speaking, cause the ocean it is floating in to rise.

And of course. If you warm the water by a factor of four or five you will see some expansion. Surely you aren't suggesting the oceans have done that in the last century, wouldn't they be well over the boiling point by now?...:-)

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

CB - enjoyed your post and I think we have a fundamental agreement which is that our finite energy sources should be saved as much as possible, no other logic needed.  GW is open for debate as are the measures used to facilitate the desired effect.

So, does society use the whip or the carrot to get the job done?

I think we are already being whipped by rising energy costs and rest assured, the trend will continue.  I am against adding any international taxes or penalties.

Why not use the carrot?  For example, the Fed has implemented ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy)  to "jump start" the economy (Quantitative Easing).

Why not give home and building owners 0% loans to reduce their energy usage.  This would be very easy to police as we have our energy bills to establish a usage pattern and in new construction modeling may be used.  If the calculated energy savings meets or exceeds the loan payments then a 0% loan should be given.

The program could be expanded to help fund what really needs done.

Larry

CB's picture
CB
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 365
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Hi Larry, as I stated in my post I am very cynical about attempts to implement policy effectively. Because of the amounts of money at stake I don't feel that solutions like a carbon tax or cap and trade will have the desired effect - even though I might theoretically be in favor of such an approach. What might be good in theory will be corrupted and misdirected in practice.

When the banking crisis erupted last fall there was a moment when the curtain was drawn aside and the nature of the corrupt financial system could be seen... yet here we are, 9 monthths later and we have gone back to business as usual. No fundamental reform is on the table. I predict that unless the system totally collapses there will be no true reform - the ststus quo is too powerful a drug.

Our health care system in the US is screwed up in a major way - but there will be no reasonable, comprehensive solution for the same reason. Whatever is proposed will be corrupted by the current vested interests and skewed in their favor. The driving objective will not be providing health care for the population at large as efficiently and responsibly as possible but to prevent significant changes in the way wealth flows through the current mess - while providing some "acceptable" cover so that it appears something has been accomplished.

It will be the same for energy policy, military spending, Social Security, etc etc. ..... until a change of course is forced upon us by events.

Cheers, CB

idoctor's picture
idoctor
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 4 2008
Posts: 1731
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

I thought we needed more CO2 in the air for all the plants we need for our new green energy policies.... Green is good Carbon is Bad LOL.

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
idoctor wrote:

I thought we needed more CO2 in the air for all the plants we need for our new green energy policies.... Green is good Carbon is Bad LOL.

LOL.....Good one. Reduce the CO2........Since plants breathe that and provide our oxygen, our O2 will become depleted as well and every organism but anerobic bacteria will begin to die off..........But heck, who cares the anerobes can begin to tax one another.....

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jerrydon10 wrote:
idoctor wrote:

I thought we needed more CO2 in the air for all the plants we need for our new green energy policies.... Green is good Carbon is Bad LOL.

LOL.....Good one. Reduce the CO2........Since plants breathe that and provide our oxygen, our O2 will become depleted as well and every organism but anerobic bacteria will begin to die off..........But heck, who cares the anerobes can begin to tax one another.....

 

LOL, IDoc!

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Some  information on ice ..................

The amount of ice/water tied up in glaciers/above-sea-level icepack is of course less than the Arctic/Antarctic icebergs (I think) but it is still significant from a rising-sea-level POV.

Not so - in fact way off the mark by many orders of magnitude

Antarctica is about the size of the continental US (Area: 13,586,400 km2) and is covered by over 6,000 feet of ice - in places over 9,000 feet thick. Volume: 30,109,800 km3 Maximum sea level rise potential: 73.44 m" (Quoted from USGS)

Greenland, while not as big, is similar. "The Greenland glacier is about 1,700,000 km2 and up to 3 km in thickness."""The US geological survey gives these figures: The Greenland ice cap with its volume of 630,000 cubic miles, if melted could yield enough water to maintain the Mississippi river for over 4,700 years." - If that ice melts, it will have a BIG impact on sea level. And the Greenland ice is melting fast at the present time. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612092741.htm

Both Antarctica and Greenland store most of their ice on solid land above sea level, so if/when it melts, the melted ice will directly affect the sea level

Jim

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America
jpitre wrote:

Both Antarctica and Greenland store most of their ice on solid land above sea level, so if/when it melts, the melted ice will directly affect the sea level

Jim

Correct, Jim.......Which means there will be more water in those oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere, which results in more snow falling in those areas to replace that melted ice, which results in a lower sea level. Can I turn my bathroom light on now?

idoctor's picture
idoctor
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 4 2008
Posts: 1731
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Correct, Jim.......Which means there will be more water in those oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere, which results in more snow falling in those areas to replace that melted ice, which results in a lower sea level. Can I turn my bathroom light on now?

Jerry you can't turn on that damn lightcause you will wake up my camel...this will cause me to have to leave my 5 wives in my tent as I put on my robe in search for who made this terrible carbon violation LOL.

Why did we ever get rid of our tents in the first place?? We would have never had all these crises in the first place. 

Seriously even if the SHTF we are far better off than Nomads. Humans become cynically anal as we get older. Look at all of us worrying the sky is falling all around us. Well I have been hoarding ammo & food lately.... 

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Jerry

Correct, Jim.......Which means there will be more water in those oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere, which results in more snow falling in those areas to replace that melted ice, which results in a lower sea level. Can I turn my bathroom light on now?

I think the flaw in that logic is that evaporation only takes place from the surface of the water and the surface area stays nearly the same even though there is more volume of water, so no more snow as you suggest -- sorry

Jim

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

 From Ron Paul:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=114

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Eye Doc, you remind me of my business partner when we get into certain situations. We cannot look at one another or we will both start giggling..........:-)

Quote:

I think the flaw in that logic is that evaporation only takes place from the surface of the water and the surface area stays nearly the same even though there is more volume of water, so no more snow as you suggest -- sorry

But Jim,

I have already posted the scientific evidence that Antarctic ice has been growing since the 1970s; more than enough to make up for all the melting ice from both poles and all the glaciers in the world. In fact, that chart I posted was taken from satellite data ever since we have had a satellite watching it. It's just a fact that the ice is growing and dramatically so the way I interpret the data. This fact begs a couple of questions from you:

Is there a god somewhere making more water on a yearly basis; are little purple pixie fairies living in my underwear drawer standing at the South pole with a water hose spraying the polar cap all winter? I'm not trying to be a smarta*s, just attacking your logic a bit.

Why not let's just use common sense and stick with science. New water to increase that ice mass is not being created by cartoon characters or divine beings or from anywhere. It is being evaporated from the oceans into the atmosphere. That is the only place possible that it could be coming from.

And If new ice at that pole is being created from snowfall, there is no other logical explanation other than it must be coming from surface water that is decreasing in volume.

Islands cannot be sinking, they must rise if we entertain a global warming/scenario as cause/effect in that vein.

 

 

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

I suggest you move this post to:  Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off? thread.  There is a fairly long discussion of the subject there.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

So have we all agreed that we can or can't violate Archimede's Principle........? 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

I posted above in response to Jerrydon #3 before I saw the rest of the thread.  Although the topic was largely discussed in the other thread, this one is apparently presenting a parallel conversation on many of the same subjects.  Nonetheless, the following conversation from last fall discusses the topic of sea level rise exhaustively, including contributions from Roger Pielke:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/#more-598

There is a great deal of uncertainty at this point about how much ice will melt, but it is worth noting that since the IPCC AR4 report came out in 2007, observations have been at the upper ends of the ranges projected in the report.  So, it is not irresponsible to plan for and try to ameliorate the likely results from projected AGW.

BTW, CB, post #12 is the best summation of the science I've read in a while.  Thanks for the contribution.

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Well, let's look at this Carbon thingy in a little more detail and also sun activity over time while we are at it. The AGW theorists cite that Carbon has been steadily increasing over time and that global temperatures have increased with it and because of it. The former certainly is true and the latter, well at least a little bit true but maybe not because of it. Here is a graph from Wood's Hole Research Center showing the correlation:

 

 

The graph certainly seems to show some kind of correlation, doesn't it. And the first question that comes to my mind is the obvious one: Is the temperature going up because the Carbon is, or vise versa? Is there a cause/effect from either statistic? Could it even be possible that it is the temp upping the Carbon rather than the other way around?

 The above graph goes all the way back to 1880. Let's look at this a bit closer and in our modern time.

 

 

This graph is a little more interesting. The green line shows a wobbling increase in Carbon, the wobbling being due to the seasonal changes on Mauna Loa, Hawaii where it was measured. But something else is interesting. If we drew a line through the blue temp change it doesn't seem to be changing with the rate of the increasing Carbon nearly as closely as the previous graph portrayed it and look toward the right. See that purple line where the earth begins to cool? In fact, starting about the time that GW was elected, the earth started cooling and during that time the earth is cooling the Carbon is still rising. The link below shows that the earth has cooled about 0.26 Celsius/decade during that period.

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

It seems to me that perhaps there is a lag effect in that either the Carbon is rising eventually pulling up the temperature or it is the other way around.

But that doesn't quite make sense to me. Carbon should be stabilizing temperature as well if it were the former case. You see some greenhouse gas is good for the environment. It acts as a stabilizer in that it cools and warms the earth at the same time. A large part of greenhouse gas is water vapor and the greater the water vapor in the atmosphere--cloud cover--the less photons hit the earth to warm it. Yet, it is these greenhouse gasses that keep our island home a relatively comphy 15degC because without them, the earth would be an uncomfortable -18degC:

"Greenhouse gases are primarily water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone. Greenhouse gases are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing long wavelength radiation. The absorbed energy is then transferred to cooler molecules or radiated at longer wavelengths than the energy previously absorbed. This process makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be without the greenhouse gases (but with the atmosphere and clouds) by about 33 degrees Celsius. See here for a graphic of the energy transfers expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2)."

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

Well, it seems to me unlikely that the Carbon is causing the temperature rise there wouldn't be much of a lag because the moment the greenhouse gasses increase, the clouds are there. Could it be the other way around?

Interestingly enough, do you know what the biggest Carbon sink on earth is? It is the oceans. You see when the oceans are warm, they release massive amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere and when they are cool they absorb Carbon:

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water near the Arctic and Antarctic. When the cold water sinks deep into the ocean in winter, it carries the carbon dioxide away from the atmosphere. Many years later, the water is gradually pulled closer to the sea surface by mixing in the ocean. When it gets to the surface in warm areas it releases the carbon dioxide back to the air. This process allows the ocean to store great quantities of carbon dioxide for many centuries. We call this the physical pump that takes carbon dioxide out of the air."

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceansandclimate.htm

Yes, there IS a lag effect because it takes years for the water close to the pole to warm and release Carbon into the atmosphere.

Well look at that. Isn't science showing us that it is not the rising Carbon causing the rise in temperature, it is probably the rise in temperature causing warming of the oceans that is causing the rise in Carbon?

OK, BUT what was causing the rise in temperature?

That one I believe to be easy. It was a warming sun cycle due to sunspot activity:

"Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18
months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and
has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less
sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and
that 2009 may be cold for the same."

http://www.tgdaily.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=42006

Wow. Has this been true forever? Yup, look at this graph that traces sunspot activity as related to global temperature over time:

Holy cow! Can that kind of history for over a hundred years be a mere coincidence?

Nope.

I think we have it. Increased sunspot activity causes a warming of the oceans which causes a rise in Carbon.

So Mr. Obama, please understand that you are either going to have to tax the oceans or the sun or both to alleviate this perceived problem because to tax Carbon, you are taxing the effect rather than the cause. That's no different than taxing tornadoes to alleviate thunderstorms. Silly.

Of course, the definitive term in the above sentence is "perceived problem' because there is no actual problem at all.  CO2 is not a pollutant anymore than is O2. It is a fertilizer that plants need to grow and flourish. That helps agriculture to feed the world. Bring on the Carbon, Mr. President and let me keep my night light on. I am scared of the dark.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments