Cockburn asserts that there is a 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1850. If Cockburn's calculations are correct, what does this mean? Cockburn proves that global warming is taking place. Refuting Cockburn would be futile. Cockburn is correct in his assertions. Cockburn would agree that the Earth is getting warmer.

It's the Sun!

In the Middle Ages they burned heretics, and after reading through the hefty pile of abusive comments and supposed refutations of my initial article on global warming I'm fairly sure that the critics would be only too happy to cash in whatever carbon credits they have and torch me without further ado.-Alexander Cockburn

ROFLOL!

Aitch,

Ah, but Cockburn - like me - disputes the notion that human beings are the primary cause of the warming...heck, I doubt we're even a minor contributing factor.

The whole thing of AGW is really just an attack upon the free market system of the United States - both political and economic.

Europe is stagnant and cannot grow unless they give up their welfare State and their political correctness.

China is rising giant, but simply cannot even catch up to the US (let alone surpass us) as long as they are a one-party tyranny.

Various Third World nations wish to drain US wealth into their own coffers.

Meanwhile, domestic leftists despise the nation and wish to see us brought low in order to pay us out for our racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism and what have you.

Its a perfect mix - say that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of AGW, point out that the United States puts out the most anthropogenic CO2 and, presto!, you've got a cause that everyone who dislikes America can agree on.

It has now been made a religious dogma - humans (read: Americans) are causing AGW and unless humans (read: Americans) severely curtail their political and economic freedom, we're all gonna die...

"The whole thing of AGW is really just an attack upon the free market system of the United States -both political and economic....

It has now been made a religious dogma - humans (read: Americans) are causing AGW and unless humans (read: Americans) severely curtail their political and economic freedom, we're all gonna die...-MN

Exactly!

Oxfam: Rich Nations Must Pay: "Possibly the biggest extortion scheme in history"-lgf:

LONDON (Reuters) - Coping with the ravages of global warming will cost $50 billion a year, and the rich nations who caused most of the pollution must pay most of the bill, aid agency Oxfam said on Tuesday.

The call, barely 10 days before a crucial Group of Eight (G8) summit in Germany which has climate change at its core, is likely to make already tense negotiations even tougher.

The United States, which Oxfam says must foot 44 percent of the annual $50 billion bill, is rejecting attempts by German G8 presidency Germany to set stiff targets and timetables for cutting carbon gas emissions and raising energy efficiency.

Since we produce goods with the absolute highest efficiency in energy - manufacturing should be shifted HERE. It is the shifting of manfacturing to less efficient regions with abundant lower labor costs that is causing the problem.

Freedom,

Thing is, we'd probably be willing to shell out $50 billion - if it really went for cleaning up the environment. But we know that the money will be siphoned off by corrupt third world governments, and what isn't taken by them will be spread around leftwing groups...we'll be paying them to come up with the next "we're all gonna die" environmental scenario.

China is rising giant, but simply cannot even catch up to the US (let alone surpass us) as long as they are a one-party tyranny.

But China is catching up to us, and will soon surpass us, in CO2 emissions, and thus will be contributing to whatever AGW exists even more than we are. Yet, China is also excempt from most of Kyoto's requirements, because it's a "developing" country. If the AGW preachers were really serious about carbon emissions and not really intent on curtailing U.S. political and economic freedom, they'd go after China (where such freedoms exist in amounts far below ours).

Like the "human rights" activists who go nuts over Pinochet while ignoring (unless they're praising) Castro, Kim, Chavez and Mugabe, the double standard of the AGW preachers is blatantly obvious.

I think Ben Shapiro over at TownHall may be onto something.

Yet, China is also excempt from most of Kyoto's requirements, because it's a "developing" country.

Bigfoot, perhaps the solution is for China to invest in carbon credits from Algore's investment company instead of buying U.S. Treasuries. Voila -- problem solved! And, of course, we haven't even tapped into the potential of toilet paper credits. Think of the possibilities.

Shouldn't America lead by example? Wouldn't we have more leverage with China if we did something first?

I know "leading by example" is probably empty sentiment to alot of you guys, but when has that after stopped republicans before?

Support the troops!

In all seriousness (I know, it's hard to get serious about this topic), Ricorun, Morris and I have been discussing this topic via email recently. Much of our discussions have been centered around alternative energy development.

I mentioned a couple days ago that our local news had a reporter at one of the area gas stations that sells E85 (85% ethanol -- 15% gasoline) for flexfuel vehicles. E85 is selling for about 20% less than UL Regular, but the people he interviewed that were using E85 said they got about 20% lower mileage with E85, so the cost factor was a wash. I had heard reports that mileage was lower, but was somewhat surprised that the difference was as large as it was. Couple that with recent reports that ethanol actually polutes more than gasoline, and it would appear that the Law of Unintended Consequences wins yet another round. Sigh!

shouldn't America lead by example?

You're probably right, Eric. What are your thoughts as to how we should proceed?

Finally, something I can agree with you on Mark! Who woulda thunk it? I've known for awhile now about the fact that temperatures rise BEFORE C02 rises. Obviously there is a warming period, but the Medevil period was much hotter and the idea that manmade c02 has done this to the earth is simply ludicrous. Have you read the new study done by the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics group? Wonderful read. Nice to see we can agree on SOMETHING Mark, despite our vast political ideological differences.

Awesome article, RS.
"Abortion: It's Not Just For People Anymore."

Shouldn't America lead by example? - Eric

We are! Why look at Al Gore, he flies around in gulf stream and limosine motorcades and delivers the message. That's leading by example, right?

So I propose, all Americans live in energy consuming homes, fly around the world and use motorcades and we'll all start delivering the AGW message, and we will follow Al Gores lead.

What better way to lead.

Cheers.

What better way to lead.

Yeah, it's called the "do as I say, not as I do" leadership method. The Left has refined it to an artform.

hey
spook
do as i say...not as i do
is an artform that has been mastered by all politicians
the lefty left and the righteous right
and that simply....is the biggest problem

Just a quick note there Neocon, cars don't even produce 1/4 of the c02 that the cattle industry produces, so really if you want to blame anybody blame the cattle industry. That is of course if you believe in the ludicrous hypothesis that is known as global warming.

"What are your thoughts as to how we should proceed?"

Spook,

I don't know, it was just empty sentiment.

Seriously, I'm obviously no policy maker, but until we can pressure China into controlling CO2 emissions shouldn't we have some agreed upon (probably half-assed) piece of legislation in place or international agreement (not Kyoto - cause that's a bad word)?

You guy's can parade Gore's jet set life all you want, no ones saying to live like a caveman. Isn't it probably true that most Americans probably would continue to be blissfully unaware of a problem even if measures were undertaken to reduce emissions? The US economy doesn't have to collapse.

Meaningful action doesn't have to mean using one square of toilet paper.

Cheers!

Spook,

I don't know, it was just empty sentiment.

That's kinda what I thought. In fact, the vast majority of liberal thought is just "empty sentiment".

Spook,

Thanks for the enlightening discussion.

Cheers!

You're welcome, Eric.

I just had a horrible thought. I have a nephew named Eric. I hope you're not him.

Eric, you turd, if you want enlightening discourse then I suggest you bring something to the conversation. All you do is mumble some incoherent half sentences and then call us out for not engaging you? Show up to the party and we can talk.

I think it’s a laugh that you so easily dismiss Algore’s hypocrisy. He is the poster child of global warming hysteria but his environmental footprint (and his ass) is gigantic. But hey, he’s a DemocRAT, so he’s okay with you, right? You guys are nothing but gorebot simpletons.

How about you limousine liberals lead by example for a change?

Finally, you state, “The US economy doesn’t have to collapse”. What a scary statement. Sorta sounds like you wouldn’t mind in the least if it did.

GOP,
Sorta sounds like your inferring false meanings from my words.

How's complaining about Gore gonna help anything. He's done more than just about anyone to bring attention to this issue. That's gotta offset something;) A top-down approach is needed, not environmentalists leading by example. We just get made fun of that way.

Spook,

Well, I do have an uncle!

Cheers!

Spook,

Well, I do have an uncle!

Come on, Eric; now you're scaring me. You're not from Montana, are you?

Spook,

No, I'm from WA. Please tell me that's a good thing!

Cheers!

Yeah, Eric, that's a good thing. Whew! You had me worried there for a minute.

Eric says "Shouldn't America lead by example? Wouldn't we have more leverage with China if we did something first?

I know "leading by example" is probably empty sentiment to alot of you guys, but when has that after stopped republicans before?"

But Eric - we ALREADY pollute the least and use the least amount of energy to produce the same amount of goods. WE ARE LEADING by example. Cutting back on production here drives it overseas where they are LESS efficient.

Why do uou have to make this political? This is a world issue. You small minded person.

It really amuses me that Mark's serious contention is that the reason the vast majority of scientists believe that humans are a significant if not the major factor in global warming is some vast left wing conspiracy to destroy the free market. Without any proof of such a conspiracy of course. Without any scientific refutation of it - other than what he copies and pastes from google searches. With , at best , maybe 2 high school science courses under his belt. Howling at the wind to whomever will listen. Unfortunately there are a lot of corporations who wish it would just all go away so he has his audience
I am not trying to make fun of you Mark - I just wish you would try to engage in this seriously, knowledgeably, and unless you find substantive proof of such a left wing conspiracy to bring down the free market - without having to resort to such outlandish conspiracy theories.

Aghast! You solved the problem, Kahn. As you were! Business as usual and the world will follow.

Cheers!

Have another comparison for you:

Al Gore has this wonderful new house, really large and absolutely no eco friendly methods of heating/cooling, energy conservation, etc in use.

President Bush has this ranch in Crawford, has had it for years, has used the best available eco friendly heating/cooling, energy conservation methods available when it was built, then keeps updating as time goes on.

Guess whose home is more eco friendly? - Right the conservatives. Talk the talk, or walk the walk? Which would you prefer?

(trolls I know your answer, BDS is such a nasty disease)

Talk the talk, or walk the walk? Which would you prefer?

Gee, KJS, that's a toughie. I mean, I know the answer that logic dictates, but, like you said, BDS defies logic.

The utterly and completely hilarious aspect of this is that the "intelligent" Alexander Cockburn (and he is a good writer) is also on the furthest, most extreme edge of the establsihed Western left --he makes Noam Chomsky look like Joe Lieberman and probably thinks Ward Churchill is way cool.

He endorsed third party candidates in 2004 because he felt electing Bush would bring about the destruction of American influence. Of course, his prediction was completely accurate, but the crucial point is that he thinks that's a GOOD thing. He just be the guy you rightwingers are talking about when you say lefties hate America.

But, hey, if he think man-made global warming is a myth, then screw the scientists, because clearly Andrew Cockburn is a genius and not just a leftwing version of a rightwing crackpot, or vice versa

Now it's probably a misstatement to say that Al Gore employed no eco-friendly building practices into his house...but I digress...

Anyways, Bush can be commended for an eco-friendly pad if that's what you want to here but____ARRRGGGHHH!___BDS KICKING IN!!!!____it doesn't excuse him from a history of non-action where it really matters. Just because the leader of the free world drives a hybrid golf cart on his ranch, doesn't mean he's fixing the problem.

I guess we'll see who has their finger on the pulse of America and who has that finger stuck firmly up their @$$.

Cheers!

BTW, it's nice to see that the science debate is over and you guy's are now just arguing about what the proper level of inaction should be.

I think if we kill all the cows and start eating fish and chicken, this global warming thing would be solved.

However, wouldn't all those rotting cows produce a lot of carbon?

What are we to do? There's no way out--we're all gonna die!!!

Actually, I firmly believe that IF there is global warming it is not because of anything we humans can do or have done. We are just to insignificant a part of the ecology. Look to the sun (bright yellow ball often seen during the day in the sky) and sunspot activity. I would think that that is a much more influential part of climate change.

The challenge here was supposed to be for those of you who believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to refute the last paragraphs of Cockburn's article above. My guess is that you can't so you have been working to change the subject.

Nice try - now refute his article at will (if you can).

(...BDS is such a nasty disease)-by: kjstrouble

It's so contagious and logic-resistant, too! We need a vaccine for BDS, stat!
:P

But Eric, what I described ISN'T business as usual. Production is moving other seas because of low labor costs (please try to keep up).

I guess we could build nuclear power plants like the rest of the G8 and the industrializing world. That is ONE area we could improve.

Namecalling aside, as it proves you're not serious.... do you agree then that we need more nuclear power?

But Eric, what I described ISN'T business as usual. Production is moving other seas because of low labor costs (please try to keep up).

I guess we could build nuclear power plants like the rest of the G8 and the industrializing world. That is ONE area we could improve.

Namecalling aside, as it proves you're not serious.... do you agree then that we need more nuclear power?

Sorry for the double post, got bumped and clicked it several times.

Say, did you notice when challenged to refute the main point of the post the trolls vanished? I should try that more often, see if it works on other posts. Ofcourse, then we would have no one to pick on.

Bob,

I know his views - but he is an interesting thinker. I'm never annoyed by lefty thinking; just stupid lefty thinking (which, sadly, is 99% of lefty thinking).

Kahn,

Nuclear will probably have to be part of the solution, but does it have to be the only one?

Oh,and kj, if you want a blow by blow debunking of all your talking points check out Grist.org. There's a great "How to talk to a skeptic" feature that can bring you up to speed. You're welcome.

Cheers!

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

kj, mark et. al

From Grist

"Objection: Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Answer: This argument relies on an implicit assumption that there is a particular climatic baseline to which the earth inexorably returns -- and thus that a period of globally lower temperatures will inevitably be followed by a rise in temperatures. What is the scientific basis for that assumption?

There is no evidence of such a baseline. The climate is influenced by many factors, which change or remain stable in their own ways. The current understanding of the Little Ice Age is that it was likely the result of a decrease in solar irradiance combined with an increase in volcanic activity, blocking additional sunlight. The LIA was also not particularly well synchronized globally, affecting different regions at different times. Scientists are aware of no century-scale pattern in solar output or volcanic activity, so there's no reason to expect a reversal of those changes. As it happens, solar output did increase somewhat in the early 20th century, which did contribute to warming at that time. However, that's not behind current warming.

Another problem with appealing to a natural recovery from the LIA is that temperature has now risen to levels higher than the assumed baseline climate. So even if some recovery were to be expected, why have we now exceeded it? This argument has problems similar to the more general "it is part of a natural cycle" argument."

Don't stop here though, follow the above link and enlightenment is yours for the taking.

Cheers!

So, I guess the problem is that most of us aren't Marxist enough for you and that would make us more intelligent. Right?

I think what you really like about Cockburn is he's got the far-leftist hatred of liberals down (and no one hates liberals more than neo-commies like Cockburn), so you like the fact that he bashing us as much as you are.

You guy's can parade Gore's jet set life all you want, no ones saying to live like a caveman.

Why not? You write like a caveman. The plural for guy is "guys," and "noone's" one word.

Do you have GEICO?

Cheers, wanker!!!

Global warming is real! Don't any of you pay attention!? Where is your proof that it isn't real? Almost every single scientific paper agrees that it is a problem. Yes "this whole rise in temperature thing" has happened before, but not to this extent. Why do you think Katrina happened? The hurricane didn't reach that high catagory until it went over that warm water in the gulf... and the warm water was caused by...thats right, global warming! The top ten warmest years have all been in the last 14 years. How can anyone be so blind as to not see what is happening. I am so taken aback that so many people can be so foolish at a time like this. Even if there was no global warming, why keep hogging resources and such? I am just so confused why people do not wake up and smell the ozone.
Goddess Bless!

So Eric - would wind power be good also?

Kahn,

Yes, wind power would be fan-frikkin-tastic and you can put a wind turbine right in my very own backyard in the Hamptons!

Cheers!

Neither wind power or nuclear will be the final solution, though. It's gonna take a combination of everything - microhydro, solar, wind, wave, tide, nuclear, etc.

All of these can be tied into the electronet that President Al Gore is going to invent.

Cheers!

We don't need any of that wind power, solar, or hydrogen--we need to find more oil, and burn it like there's no tomorrow.

Cheerio!!!

So Eric, you must be a little curious as to why Senator Kennedy single handedly killed ALL future wind-mill projects in his effort to stop the project off Cape Cod? Whats up with that?

It's called wealthy Cape Cod resident's not wanting wind turbines obstructing their view. The NIMBY crowd is alive and well in every community.

Agreed. (And they wouldn't have been able to see them anyways)

But - he stopped ALL windmill projects, not just Cape Cod.