'Whatever happened to global warming?'

http://rjjrdq.com/2010/02/06/ipcc-fraud-too-much-for-india/

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I can do this all day. When you are talking about one of the most corrupt organizations out there you have plenty of material to choose from. The IPCC is a joke and I think you know it. As India's environmental minister said when India bowed out of the IPCC..."There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.").

 

Carlton, you do not believe NASA?

 

I rest my case.

 

I await further scientific word from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

http://www.climate.gov/#dataServices

How about NOAA?

 

I think it is a legitimate problem that we would be asked to carry so much of the world's freight with little of the return, assuming something like a world carbon tax. What I mean is that if there was an international agreement for a world carbon tax, the United States would pay dearly, because we have a high per capita output. But other countries would reap most of the benefits - places with coastal areas and so forth that are most endangered. But at the same time, since those economies do not depend on carbon-emitting industry, they would pay very little. In other words, we would pay a lot, but not receive benefits that come close to matching the cost to our economy.

If the rest of the world is as serious as it says about addressing the problem, I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should help subsidize the U.S.'s contribution, at least at first.

 

Equally reasonable that the rest of the world say 'You created the lion's share of the problem and benefited most from it - why should we help you defray the costs of solving it?'

 

Equally as responsible would be not relying on manipulated data and fraud. That is what the IPCC is all about. Like I said, reach a consensus not based on fraud, then talk about solutions.

 

Correct. And that even includes China. Even though they've passed us in annual emissions, a chart I saw says that, cumulatively from 1850 to 2003, the U.S. is responsible for 29 percent of the cumulative emissions and China just 8 percent.

That being said, I think the answer is that the U.S. would be being punished for choices that, when made at the time, were not destructive or even morally questionable. We didn't know that this would result. It ends up being like a retroactive tax, which doesn't seem just to me.

Also, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we hold the cards here. Us and China. A nation like India stands to lose an enormous percentage of its GDP, and much of its population, from global warming. The United States - assuming modest estimates of warming that most scientists agree are reasonable - will lose little. Hell, Russia stands to actually gain from global warming. The rest of the world needs the United States to be on board more than the United States needs to be on board. We need them more than they need us. Why not use that leverage and accomplish something?

 

Dick, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

 

So long as we're all waxing poetic about science:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/perry-officials-censored-climate-report

 

I live inland in a cold weather area. Global warming would be pretty welcome if it means I don't have to shovel snow as much.