J S

State Senator Joe Read has introduced "An Act Stating Montana's Position on Global Warming"

"Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming. 
(1) The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana's natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.
(2) The legislature finds:
(a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;
(b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and
(c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it." [Huffington Post]

Perhaps Joe cannot read, since the State of Montana Web site contains the following comments about how climate change will affect the state:

Climate Change in Montana

"Climate change will affect all of Montana's major economic sectors: agriculture, forestry, transportation and tourism, and energy supply. We may be challenged with decreased crop yields, longer forest fire seasons, reduced snowpack, and declining hydropower. The environmental costs may include reduced wildlife habitat and diminished water quality and stream flow. It is imperative that we all begin to do what we can to address this crucial issue for our own sake and the sake of the generations of Montanans to come."

http://deq.mt.gov/ClimateChange/default.mcpx

Climate Change & Forestry

Montana’s Forests in an Era of Climate Change

"Montana forests have seen a recent trend of major disturbance events, particularly insect infestation, fires, and drought conditions. In the near future at least, these trends will likely continue, and possibly worsen."

http://www.deq.mt.gov/ClimateChange/NaturalResourc...

Which side do you think will prevail in the Montana legislature?

Perhaps I missed a discussion or two here on YA when this paper first came out, but it appears to be peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, questioning CO2 as a driver of warming.

This doesn't say the planet isn't warming, doesn't say that anthropogenic factors are not involved (black soot, etc). However if its foundations are solid it does imply that the current approaches to control CO2 (to address climate change) may be premature and misguided.

Comments? Have there been reactions by leading scientists (active in and familiar with climate/CO2 science, not paid propagandists who happen to have an ancient scientific degree) discussing the merits and shortcomings of this paper?

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?Fi...

Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

Paulo Cesar Soares

International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, 1, 102-112

doi:10.4236/ijg.2010.13014 Published Online November 2010 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg)

Conclusions

The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing ef- fect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is ex- plained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known

Those of you who think that global warming is some sort of hoax, the U.S. intellignece community is simply not competent to uncover this supposed plot? What motivation could they possibly have for not detailing the plot?

If such a plot exists, why has no government study of it been obtained via the Freedom of Information Act?

Who outside of the government has outlined any hoax in detail? Not vague scare tactic propaganda in one article, but a detailed analysis of who is involved and why. I've never seen a single shred of evidence of such a hoax, but please feel free to enlighten us with the compelling evidence that anyone has uncovered which convinced you to be fearful of such a hoax.

With the total lack of such explanations and evidence, it baffles me why some people would assume that some sort of global hoax is the most likely explanation for the warming that scientists have been measuring and documenting for decades.

If there's any plot which HAS been uncovered, it was the one by the Bush Administration to withhold and downplay the evidence to delay our action against the fossil fuel industry (and boost his family's profits):

Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/...

"Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating."

A few prominent skeptics that come to mind... correct me If I've missed any peer-reviewed papers from any of these folks that question either global warming itself, that greenhouse gases play some role, or that mankind's activities are contributing to global greenhouse gases:

- Richard Lindzen (climatologist) says it's happening, but mankind plays less of a role.

- Gray isn't a climatologist (meteorologist) who says hurricanes aren't increasing (arguing about possible symptoms, not whether or not global warming is happening or caused by mankind).

- Roy Spencer (meteorologist, best known for satellite-based temperature monitoring work) says the PDO current influence plus CO2 is more accurate than considering CO2 alone (like Lindzen, arguing for a lower role for, not against, mankind's influence).

This summary in court by a judge covers John Christy: "Dr. Christy, agrees... most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision...

- Ross Mckitrick... economist... never mind.

- Stephen McIntyre... mathematician and director of geologic exploration companies... never mind.

So is it true that there no direct opposition, as recorded in peer-reviewed scientific journals, to the theory that mankind's contribution to greenhouse gases is warming the planet?

Skeptics, if any "debate" on the core theory exists among scientists, here's your chance to prove it!

No unsupported rants please, just a few links to the papers published in peer-reviewed journal by working research scientists, thanks.

And how, in your opinion, do they influence his recommendations on global warming?

I see some weird statements and I'm curious whether people are aware of something that I haven't seen or considered.

Please support your response with examples of what he says or does that lead you to your conclusions.

Material form his Web site or direct quotes and links are of course most credible...

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

World leaders are trying to figure out how to clue people in:

Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_sc/af_cl...

What global evidence is there to support such wild claims?

Why would someone even make them?

Here's what is currently being proposed to raise money to maintain roads:

---

Projected shortfalls in revenue led the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a report issued in January 2008, to call for an increase of as much as 40 cents a gallon in the gas tax, phased in over five years.

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations, which supports a fuel tax increase as long as the money goes to highway projects, said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

Transportation is responsible for about a third of all U.S. carbon emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Traffic congestion wastes an estimated 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year. Less congestion would reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said.

Motorists' habits spur call for tax increases

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/ga...

---

OK, raising gas prices might encourage people to drive slightly less, but not a single dollar of the revenue raised would go directly to reducing global warming. Furthermore, higher fuel prices encourage people to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles, LOWERING revenue from gas taxes.

What happened to the reasoning that investing in road infrastructure to reduce congestion simply encouraged people to move further out from city centers, increasing emissions? Where is the public policy change to reduce the rampant suburban overbuilding that creates the traffic?

We are given contrary arguments on this issue over time, whatever suits politicians' needs at the time (diverting road funds to other agencies in the name of reducing emissions vs. increasing taxes to replace the diverted funds).

Why not first eliminate the approximately $80 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry? Why not better allocate the over 50% of our federal income tax dollars that go towards the Department of Defense (and interest paid on war debt)? Donald Rumsfeld admitted in 2001 that the Department of Defense was so poorly managed that it couldn't even account for $3.4 trillion dollars. (Coincidentaly, that story broke on September 10, and it was military attacks using airliners the following day that effectively buryied the Department of Defense scandal, the predictable patriotic flag-waving by politicians even resulting in tremendous funding increases to the DoD, increasing the national debt to astronomical levels and setting us up for future financial collapse.)

So do you think politicians will take the bait and propose another "global warming tax" that really has its funds diverted to other programs (like Los Angeles did to fund public transit? If politicians do, will you vote them out in 2012)?

As a side note, I am concerned about global warming, but that's all the more reason to oppose measures that give the public the mistaken impression that they've already funded a response, and which divert funds that otherwise could have gone towards directly productive responses.

Here's what is being proposed to raise money to maintain roads:

---

Projected shortfalls in revenue led the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a report issued in January 2008, to call for an increase of as much as 40 cents a gallon in the gas tax, phased in over five years.

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations, which supports a fuel tax increase as long as the money goes to highway projects, said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

Transportation is responsible for about a third of all U.S. carbon emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Traffic congestion wastes an estimated 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year. Less congestion would reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said.

Motorists' habits spur call for tax increases

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/ga...

---

OK, raising gas prices might encourage people to drive slightly less, but not a single dollar of the revenue raised would go directly to reducing global warming. Furthermore, higher fuel prices encourage people to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles, LOWERING revenue from gas taxes.

Why not first eliminate the approximately $80 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry? Why not better allocate the over 50% of our federal income tax dollars that go towards the Department of Defense (and interest paid on war debt)? Donald Rumsfeld admitted in 2001 that the Department of Defense was so poorly managed that it couldn't even account for $3.4 trillion dollars. (Coincidentaly, that story broke on September 10, and it was military attacks using airliners the following day that effectively buryied the Department of Defense scandal, the predictable patriotic flag-waving by politicians even resulting in tremendous funding increases to the DoD, increasing the national debt to astronomical levels and setting us up for future financial collapse.)

So do you think politicians will take the bait and propose another "global warming tax" that really has its funds diverted to other programs, like Los Angeles did to fund public transit? If politicians do, will you vote them out in 2012?

As a side note, I am concerned about global warming, but that's all the more reason to oppose measures that give the public the mistaken impression that they've already funded a response, and which divert funds that otherwise could have gone towards directly productive responses making our power and transportation infrastructure more efficient.

1. To disprove the warming, simply show one global data set for the past 150 years that does not show warming. Where is that (global) chart?

2. To disprove greenhouse gas warming point to even one incidence in the world's billions of years of geologic history where elevated CO2 levels did not correspond to warming. We have geologist skeptics here... why can't even the specialists show that one counter-example?

3. To show that the warming is not due to mankind's increased CO2 releases, show even one case of CO2 concentrations greater than today from the past 650,000 years.

4. To prove the "sun is the cause" alternative, simply show that the temperatures of all planets are warming (or show one planet that contradicts our understanding of greenhouse gas theory and you've disproven all global warming). If that is the skeptics' best shot, why is there no consistent data on warming across the solar system?

With so many dead simple ways to disprove global warming, why isn't there one example?

With the lack of any such theory-killing examples from the billions of years of earth's history or even from other planets in our solar system, how can a position of doubt be justified?

Some rants on Yahoo Answers claim that scientists are against nuclear power. Are there any examples of their actual recommendations on that option, one way or the other?

I see that claim a lot in rants on Yahoo Answers. Is there any evidence for or against it?

Do they even side with environmentalists in all cases?

NASA Director Dr. James Hansen explained way back in January through March that we're experiencing an unusually strong La Nina cooling influence in the Northern Hemisphere (only).

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

Was Dr. Hansen simply lucky to correctly predict ongoing cold weather (with the hotter phase of the El Nino Southern Oscillation not returning until '09/'10), or was his prediction right based on a solid understanding of that particular inflence on short term weather cycles?

Seems like a good question, so given that I'm blocked, I'll have to ask it myself to see the answers.

Setting aside the science discussion for a moment...

Regardless of your thoughts on global warming causes, if the politicians promoting CO2 controls only in developing countries win:

1. Will global CO2 releases in 20 to 30 years be lower, or higher than today?

2. Will global CO2 releases be higher than, or lower than, what they would have been without such a treaty?

As a starting point, developing nations and developed nations have roughly the same emissions today, but developing nations have higher economic growth rates and higher population growth. What might happen to economic growth under CO2 treaties that promote production shifts to, and economic growth in, developing nations, where no controls exist (and none are proposed)?

Developed nations lose the jobs and gross domestic product, the value of their currency erodes as their national debt skyrockets, the corporations evade paying the cost for environmental impacts, and they pass the bill for their impact on to the (now unemployed) residents left in the developed nation.

It seems to me that Kyoto-style agreements only accelerate the economic decline of developed nations and give the largest contributors to the problem a secure place to hide, exempt from controls.

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

First evolution, now greenhouse gas theory (global warming)... what's next, e-mc2?

e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/scienc...

Or maybe someone will dispute gravity?

Has anyone seen an analysis, or even accurate numbers of H1-B visas issued in recent years so we could estimate these numbers?

I know that the supposed "limits" on H1-Bs are regularly exceeded greatly due to the many generous loopholes written into the program...

What's your prediction, will the coal industry prevail?

Environmentalists Win Big EPA Ruling

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,185...

"In a nutshell it sends [new plants ]back to the drawing board to address their CO2 emissions," says Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Clean Coal campaign. "In the short term it freezes the coal industry in its tracks."