Here We Go Again: Climate Taxes on the Table, Accompanied by Usual Media Slant

By Tom Blumer | November 07, 2010 | 10:40

A A

They're back, they have their media water-carriers in place, and the Obama administration is smack dab in the middle of it.

The United Nations is pushing for countries in the developed world to keep their "promise" to, in the worlds of Charles J. Hanley at the Associated Press, "raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to cope with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."

It's as if ClimateGate never happened (link is to NB's 120-plus posts on the topic). It's as if the IPCC and others associated with the scandal and the evidence-impaired claims of global warming -- er, climate change -- uh, make that climate disruption -- still have their reputations totally intact.

Here is how Bloomberg describes the U.N.'s request:

Bank Tax, CO2 Auctions Recommended by Soros Panel to Help Climate Efforts

At least $65 billion might be raised by taxing foreign-exchange transactions and auctioning pollution permits, a United Nations panel said today in a report recommending ways to finance aid for fighting global warming.

The findings are intended to guide envoys at UN climate talks that start this month in Mexico as they seek ways to pay for $100 billion in climate aid that was pledged by 2020 to poor nations at last year’s summit in Copenhagen. The report found that the goal is “challenging but feasible” to achieve.

Those of us with memories recall that Copenhagen resulted in nothing resembling a "pledge," as the UK Guardian reported with sadness last year:

Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

The AP's Hanley is even worse, giving casual readers who don't understand that the U.S. Senate would have to ratify what would in effect be a treaty the impression that the U.S. has signed on to something meaningful already (bold is mine):

UN panel sees sources for billions for climate

A high-level U.N. panel on Friday outlined potential sources, including levies on international flights, to raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to cope with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The greatest contributions would come from private investment and from "carbon pricing," either a direct tax broadly on emissions of carbon dioxide or a cap on emissions coupled with trading in emissions allowances, the advisory group of global political and financial leaders said in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The United States has been a major holdout, however, against such carbon pricing plans, and Tuesday's Republican victory in the U.S. House guarantees none will be enacted for at least two years.

... At last December's climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, developed nations, led by U.S. President Barack Obama, agreed to set a goal of $100 billion in annual climate finance by the year 2020.

... In scores of developing nations in a warming world, money will be needed to build coastal protection against rising seas, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, and improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming.

It also will help them move to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power, and away from the fossil fuels whose emissions are blamed for global warming.

"It is challenging but feasible to meet this goal," the panel said of the $100 billion target.

... The panelists acknowledged likely political difficulties in enacting transportation and foreign-exchange levies on a global scale, but U.N. chief Ban said their vision was both "financially feasible and politically viable."

If you think you can stand it, read the whole thing, especially the possible revenues sources listed at the end of Hanley's piece.

As to Hanley's contention that no carbon pricing plans will be enacted, I would only suggest that we be aware of lame ducks still possessing power.

Tom Blumer's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

Not just NO!

Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:46am.

HELL NO!!!

It's Good the Republicans Will Control the House

Submitted by libBuster on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:55am.

It is fortunate the Republicans will soon control the House of Represenatives. All revenue bills must originate in the House.

reply to libBuster - Correct!

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:13pm.

“All revenue bills must originate in the House.”

But all Treaties are approved or rejected by the Senate! If the U.S. enters into this monstrosity under the guise of it being a treaty with a national obligation to contribute… we are screwed.

Seems that having control of the Senate is pretty important after all.

"I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question." - Yogi Berra, (Baseball Great and Philosopher)

There is some history here . . .

Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:26pm.

When Gore came home with the Kyoto Treaty, Clinton didn't even submit it for ratification because the Senate was angry about it.

So to put their displeasure on the record, the Senate passed a resolution repudiating Kyoto on a vote of something like 99-0. And that was when the economy was better than it is today.

Democrats have already begun running away from this President, and the Democratic Senators know that ratifying such a global tax regime during is political suicide.

Galvanic - Hope you're right!

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:36pm.

My confidence in the astuteness of the Dem controlled Senate is not strong... But I pray you are correct and they see the handwriting on the wall. :o)

"I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question." - Yogi Berra, (Baseball Great and Philosopher)

one other thing

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:53pm.

There is one other thing to keep in mind about this, and that's the Repubicans gained a few more seats. If no treaty is pushed before the year's end and it's pushed to the new Senate, the Republicans have a better advantage with a filibuster.

-Jon

Treaties Require 67 Votes

Submitted by libBuster on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:58pm.

Once again the Framers of the Constiution were a lot smarter than today's Democrats. A treaty requires a 2/3 vote to be approved. Even discounting the RINO bleed of Snowe, Collins, Graham and McCain we are still way short of 67 votes.

You are correct there but

Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:20pm.

You are correct there but what if they bring it up in this lame duck session. With the 2 idiots from Maine they would have enough. We got to hope that the senators from West By God Virginia would vote against it for the harm it would have to the coal industtry.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And what does it take to

Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:29pm.

And what does it take to invalidate a treaty? I say the treaty is null and void if any of the parties break the conditions of said treaty. Im sure that there will be countries than cannot meet the conditions of teh treaty.

Barring that I think the treaty can be nullified by a simple vote of congress. Does anyone know anything about how to get rid of treaties?

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark

I don't trust republicans,

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:02pm.

I don't trust republicans, they're just the puppets of lobbyists from giant corporations that don't want regulation to interfere with their own self-gain. All republicans do is take up space in the house and say no to everything. Lowering taxes on just the wealthy just contributes to the deficit and seems to have the intention establishing an oligarchy in which the wealthy control everything and the working class can only eat their crums.

D**n, you're displaying a lot of ignorance

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:12pm.

If the "Bush tax cuts" are extended, everyone is going to pay the same amount of tax on the same amount of taxable income as they have (after adjustments of the brackets for inflation) for the past 8 years (2003-2010).

NOBODY is talking about a tax cut (though we should be considering one, along with meaningful decreases in spending). The question is whether everyone will continue paying the same, or whether high-income earners are going to get socked with an increase (followed by another one for ObamaCare in 2012), or whether everyone will get socked with an increase because of presidential vetoes.

Hey, College Boy,

Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:52pm.

Wait until you're out earning your own way before you start talking about how people ought to be taxed.

And for God's sake, start thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating liberal rhetoric.

If you represent the future of our country, we are so screwed...

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer

Stop this crap!

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:52am.

What the hell, the UN thinks short term memories are abound and people forgot about the ClimateGate and the exposure of the fraud?

Good god, this is one of, if not THE, biggest hoaxes in human history!

-Jon

This is nothing more than

Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:09am.

This is nothing more than another attempt at a two-tier society.

My current electric generation rate is currently about 10 cents/kh

Why not just globally mandate the price of electricity to $1per kilowatt/hour and be done with it?

The rich will be able to "buy" the privilege of using as much electricity as they want, and the rest of us who can't afford the "credits" will have to do without.

The result will be the same: the rich will be able to afford electricity; the rest of us won't.

Energy Generation Costs

Submitted by libBuster on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:14pm.

2007 Electric Power Generation Cost in cents per KWh

nuclear         01.76¢

coal               02.47¢

gas                06.78¢

petroleum    10.26¢

So why again do we have a problem that needs taxes?

We need taxes

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:43pm.

The reason why we need taxes on fossil fuel companies is because for as long as coal, and oil are the cheapest energy sources, we will consume them until they're gone. We will tear mountains down, and exploit every possible oil reserve, even in the planet's most pristine regions until all the coal and oil is completely gone. When we burn fossil fuels we are returning to the atmosphere carbon that has been completely seperated from the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years in geological blink of an eye. If we were to burn all of the fossil fuels in the earth, we would inject enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to take the planet back to the ice-free state when sea levels were over 240 feet higher than today.

It wasn't until carbon dioxide levels dropped below 450ppm, when Antarctica began to freeze over 35 million years ago. We will pass 450ppm by 2050 or sooner if we don't make any big change within the next decade or two. We cannot let this happen, we must quicky find a future beyond fossil fuels. Raising taxes on the polluters is the only way to get us moving in a direction that will help us avoid dangerous climate change.

Just some suggestions

Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:02pm.

You can personally make a significant reduction in carbon dioxide levels by keeping your mouth shut. Not only would you stop making an idiot of yourself in public, you would be walking the walk and demonstrating by your own behavior how you would like the rest of us to act.

Hey, and why don't you consider changing your major to Astrophysics so you can learn what kind of influence the sun (you know, that large yellow thing in the sky that heats the earth) has on climate? I bet that would be a lot more rewarding than propagating Al Gore's bullshirt to help him get rich(er).

Wonder why nobody takes you seriously? Read the news.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer

Isn't it Obvious?

Submitted by Harbour11 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:05am.

The entire purpose of the UN Panel is to redistribute wealth. The essence of every government-based model to reduce greenhouse gases focuses around the artificial increase in the cost of hydrocarbons. Of course, government and fraudulent carbon banks and embezzlers will be the only beneficiaries.

Hey, they did such a fine job on Oil for Food

Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:16am.

Soooooo, let's give $100 billion per year to the UN, to be managed and redistributed by a corrupt organization which is accountable to no one and whose leaders cannot be fired.

Makes sense to me.

Agreed, Galv.

Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:44am.

They try to stick their hands in our pockets at every opportunity.

Instead of saying "No", we ought to say "Hell No", and defund the US "contribution" to the UN. Let them put their headquarters somewhere else....say, Buenos Aires.

What is never mentioned in these pleas for bucks for the "developing" world, is that much of it is doing quite well on its own, thank you very much. When we were travelling through Latin America, the countries we travelled through all had twigged to "eco-tourism", and were generating alot of bucks and providing lots of bang.

One of the places we visited was Copan Ruin in Guatemala (that's the link to my blog on the visit), where we were charged very American prices, which I gladly paid, as the money funds the Honduran government's efforts at continued improvement of the site. This is the case in nearly all of the countries we visited, although I'd have to say none (even Nicaragua) are third world, and Mexico is in fact quite close to par with us, in terms of infrastructure.

Until the poor countries in the world recognize the need to take care of their own countries, and end the cultural practices that destroy them, it makes no sense to "mitigate" anything at all....including non-existent climate change. Having said that, I'm all for private efforts to provide clean water wells, doctors-without-borders, and other humanitarian programs of that sort. (While we were in Nicaragua we met a California nursing student who had paid her own way to work with a medical group providing medical care to the population of those who lived ! at the Managua dump...an experience she felt would help he through her entire career).

But wholesale transfer of wealth from us to third world "leaders"....no frakin' way! As you rightly pointed out, Food for Oil. I'm reminded of the words of Tom Clancy......grand larceny writ large.

"We" could pour a whole $100 bnn into Haiti yearly and it would never fix it. Haiti is beyond hope. Poor Haiti.

Just say No! To the UN.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

The only real solution for Haiti is to relocate . . .

Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:39pm.

. . . the entire population to Brazil or some other country with room to absorb them.

Haiti is an ecological disaster and getting worse, and its culture precludes any prospects for progress.

Exactly

Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:47pm.

It seems you and are a few who wholly understand the situation in Haiti.

After 60 years of communism and deprivation, Cuba will be able to right the ship once its communist regime is gone. They have the natural resources and culture to join the rest of the Americas and prosper.

Haiti is gone. There's nothing to be done about it, other than what you suggest. But the bleeding hearts will continue to try to fix that which is terminally broken. It's so sad, I hate to see these desperate people wash up drowned on our shores.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

glavanic

Submitted by dmaley1714 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:52pm.

excellant point -it worked wonders with the iraq oil- for food 15billion dollars. media still all over that one

The redistributive policies

Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:19am.

The redistributive policies of the left continue. We have moved on from just technology that the western free market economies must produce and give away to those countries who cant do so themselves and wont pay for. To now depressing our own economies with burdensome taxes and onerous regulations and shuttling the funds to theirs. This is not an attempt to "clean the world" this is an attempt to put all countries on even economic footing. One far below the standard of our current one. The same producing countries will continue to produce, the same non-producing countries will continue to non-produce, but the profits and benifits of the producers will be evenly spread amongst all countries. this is a huge step towards losing our sovereignty.

I'm glad I didn't put away my

Submitted by ant on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:19am.

I'm glad I didn't put away my pitchfork and torches just yet.

You know how you know it's a scam....?

Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:29am.

Right here.

The panel, which includes billionaire investor George Soros and Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said selling carbon-emissions permits would generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion, according to the report released today.
The fact that George Soros and Larry Summers are there tell me that this is a hoax designed to steal tens of billions of dollars and give it to hand picked cronies. How much of that money will end up in Soros's pocket or will be tucked away for Obama after he leaves the White House....? This is very similar to Democrats financing their own re-election by giving the unions massive bailouts that trickle back into their campaign coffers.

Follow me on Twitter

Not too suprising

Submitted by EighTrack on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:39am.

Yeah, the first thing I noticed when I read through this was George Soros and Larry Summers being a big part of this whole ordeal. This Climate Tax bull crap is nothing more than a way to redistribute the wealth of countries that actually produce something to countries that do no producing of their own, as well as a way for George Soros as well as all affiliated with him to make more money. Stuff like this makes my blood boil, and it's especially maddening considering that Climategate, which I thought would wake up a lot more people to this Global Warming scam, was not too long ago.

Lots of things are on the table

Submitted by 10ksnooker on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:29am.

For those stupid enough to try them.

And the townhalls of August are coming up quick.

On second thought, I can see November 2012 from my window.

These idiots never learn

Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:49am.

Unfortunately, the November 2 cluebat apparently wasn't big enough.

It's going to take a 2012 WMD to rid us of these leeches, and the leeches' water carriers (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et.al.).

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

I'm' A Denier

Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:00pm.

The guys over at Minnesotans for Global Warming are at it again. The Monkees will never be the same.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now THAT ....

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:04pm.

... is entertainment.

Instant Classic

Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:10pm.

If I were you, Mr. Blumer, I'd bookmark for future blog entries, here.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

Saul Alinsky Exposed (Again)

Submitted by rammingspeed on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:03pm.

This is straight from the Saul Alinsky guidelines: Never, never, never, never, never even acknowledge a critic, much less admit you could possibly be wrong about anything. Re-gear your message and send it out anew, as though nothing was ever said. There will be enough stooges out there who'll go along with it, so don't worry about the critics. The dominant mass news media in America has been extremely successful with this tactic. It's how their socialistic cancer has grown.

Obama's thinking is; I might

Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:03pm.

Obama's thinking is; I might not always be right but I ain't never wrong.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Fixed it for ya

Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:04pm.

Obama's thinking is, I ain't never wrong.

I doubt he even admits in his deepest, innermost, never-to-be-revealed private thoughts "I might not always be right." He's that arrogant.

The unspoken issue here is

Submitted by Reaver on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:38pm.

The unspoken issue here is the ongoing frustration at the UN with their inability to raise their own taxes, forcing them to rely on contributions from their member states. Various schemes have been proposed over the years from taxing international flights to taxes on international financial transactions. Now in the name of “climate change” the UN is trying to create its own tax system “including levies on international flights” as well as “a financial transaction tax” and “selling carbon emissions permits”. But its all for a good cause “for poorer countries to cope with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”, of course all those billions will first be funneled through a corrupt and unaccountable UN before it is redistributed to those poorer countries.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.

The One and Only Solution

Submitted by JustAl on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:58pm.

Get us the hell out of the UN and kick them the hell out of the US. That ends this progressive experiment that Wilson wanted and Truman got. Stop fighting it, stop making excuses for it. . . cut it off and kill it.

The EPA and the Communist

Submitted by Thoreau on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:47pm.

The EPA and the Communist Czar's are how Obama will impliment this. Presidential order. He can no longer cock up the House and Senate with dreams of collapsing America.

I must have posted this question a dozen times here

Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:53pm.

and yet not a wing nut offers to explain.

We have gone through seven ice ages with the temperatures going up and then down again.

All this before man walked the planet and burned his first piece of coal.

But, somehow this fluctuation is man made.

How can you sit on such a high pile of it?

hbnolikeee

Anyone holding office

Submitted by Semus on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:54pm.

Anyone holding office supporting this kind of legislation, shouldn't be holding office.

The Putrid Buckets of Leftist Water . . .

Submitted by DoktorFranken on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:13pm.

. . . . . that are carried by the Media will start stinking up their houses soon enough when the Ignorant Masses wake up to what it will cost them. Merely more legislation to unfund or repeal come next year.

Global warming

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 6:55pm.

"It's as if climategate never happened"

Climategate was a bogus scandal conveniently released before the climate summit in Copenhagen with the attempt to derail any progress on fighting climate change. Tom Blumer is acting like the 6 major investigations by experts into the climategate emails never happened. Not one of these 6 invesigations found any evidence whatsoever of the scientists fudging data or suppressing contradictory data.

Despite the definitive investigations into climategate, the conservative media still cherishes it as if it is the ultimate debunking of all things related to global warming. The belief that cherry-picked sentences in emails of just a few of the world's scientists disproves anthropogenic global warming is now just an article of absolute faith among the denialist-faithful.

"evidence-impeared"? Speak for yourselves righties! You science-impeared deniers/delayers are putting your heads in the sand and deliberately ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Comfortable lies are not the solution to uncomfortable truths!

Nice try ...

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 2:32pm.

... no sale.

There never has been a credible answer to what's discussed here. Never.

All the whitewashing in the world won't change what Kevin Trenberth wrote, won't change the fact that his attempted spin after its discovery was without merit, and won't change the fact that the so-called evidence forming the basis for alleged AGW has been hopelessly tainted and compromised.

The climate change deniers,

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:09am.

The climate change deniers, when quoting Trenberth's "Its a travesty that we can't" omitted the message of the entire email. In a sentence just above the the now lovable quote reffered to a paper that he wrote within the past couple of years about the planet's energy imbalance. What trenberth was trying to decipher in the study was the discrepency between satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation and the rate at which the upper 700ft of the ocean accumulated heat. His "travesty" was the inadequacy of the monitoring of the heat in and out of the climate system, he was not questioning global warming.

Focusing on a few "suggestive" emails is useful distraction for those who wish to hide from the scientific reality of human-caused climate change, but it changes nothing about the solid undeniable evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Its time this nation snaps out of its denial, and fulfills its obligation for future generations so our children can have the wonderful biodiversity that we grew up with and thought of as a birth right. If continue business as usual we will be risking a very different planet. If we were to burn all of the conventional fossil fuels in the ground we the planet would eventually be returned to the ice-free state that it has not seen in 30 million years. Equilibrium global temperature in response to a carbon dioxide level of >450ppm equals an ice-free planet.

I don't even need to reply to your comment

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:47am.

You indict yourself with your embarrassing, shameless, in-denial spin.

Nice job. :-->

Please heed the message of science

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:08pm.

The phycist, Richard Feynman wrote-- "Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves" Why has the right wing betrayed science and reason and now has developed a deep hatred towards knowledge, and desire for ignorance and fear.

The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that we humans are indeed the cause of global warming. What perplexes me more than anything is the fierce opposition towards the science. Shouldn't the opposition lessen as the evidence continues to grow?

You cannot let your political ideology blind you from recognizing the scientific reality of climate change. What is causing global warming is purely a scientific question. Science tells us that we need to slash greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming. Like any problem, we will not come close to solving this problem unless we admit there is a problem.

Like I said, comfortable lies are not the solution to uncomfortable truths.

Well Mr. Science uber alles

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:15pm.

Well Mr. Science uber alles (really meaning "science you agree with"), your "science" has had a really bad week.

Unpeer-reviewed

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:08am.

Unpeer-reviewed pseudo-science websites like Watts Up With That are unreliable sources of accurate information about climate change. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are the best sources of real information on climate change. These are not inaccessible, they can be found online, but it does require a bit more effort. I suppose its much easier to read a blog by a radio weather man and walk away thinking you're an instant expert, its like the fast food approach to science.

The major scientific bodies listed below all agree that global warming is happening and that that greenhouse gas emmisions are to blame. These are useful sources of climate change information.

Peer review??

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:22am.

Peer review, schmeer review.

Sorry to interrupt Sir

Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:24am.

You are a contributor so I just wanted to know if you have the power to stop the chinese wholesale invasion? It's ugly.

I've zapped them at most or all of my recent threads ...

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:35am.

... and have notified management of the problem commenter.

Zapping beyond my threads would be overstepping.

SiberianExpress2007, Most of your links are OLD very OLD.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:17pm.

Try this graph (updated last month)... getting cold FAST.

Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing
7 feet per day!

Study this Graph... co2 levels no effect, zip zero nadda. It's the SUN...

This is a chilly graph of DATA for 400 years.

As you can see, we’ve never had such a low value before, and the only place lower to go is “zero”.

You Didn't Build That.

"Alaska's Hubbard Glacier

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 1:34am.

"Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!"

Glaciers all over the globe are retreating at an accelerating rate, Greenland lost a record amount of ice in the summer of 2010, and summer Arctic sea ice extent is declining at a rate of 11.7% per decade. While there are a minority of glaciers that are gaining ice because in some cases increased precipitation from snowfall can offset increased summer melting, the global mass of all the glaciers has been declining rapidly, And that decline is accelerating.

"Study this graph... CO2 levels no effect, zip zero nadda. Its the sun..."

The graph you are showing me is a faked reconstuction of global temperatures. The graph has no Y-axis, showing that its not based on real science, and the line is so unrealistically smooth. This graph was produced by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. Cliff Harris falsely advertises himself as "one of the top ten climatologists in the world for the past 40 years", while in reality he, has no scientific credentials. Cliff Harris doesn't even seem to know the difference between weather and climate. He also claims that there were "wide spread ice age predictions in the 1970s", there were no ice age predictions in the scientific journals during 70s, and even the popular media, climate was only of marginal concern at the time.

While the changes in solar activity have played a role in preindustrial climate changes, solar variations cannot explain the current warming trend. Here is an empirical description of how science knows why-- Reconstuctions of solar activity and global temperature show a close correlation over the past 1150 years, however the correlation breaks down in the 1970s when temperature begins to rise rapidly and solar activity shows a slight cooling trend (Usoskin 2005) This has lead scientist to conclude that the current warming trend has different source and cannot be explained by solar activity. So, not only is the sun not causing global warming, its slightly masking it. There are also compelling fingerprints in the way the earth is warming that tell science that greenhouse warming is the cause. If a more active sun were warming the atmosphere, all of the atmosphere's layers would warm. What is actually occuring is the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling. This pattern is the telltale evidence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. Also, solar-driven warming would cause stronger warming in daytime temperatures than in nightime temperatures, and more pronounced warming in the tropics than at high latitudes. What's actually occuring is a greater warming trend in nightime temperatures than in daytime temperatures, and more warming is occuring in high latitudes than in the tropics. These are all indications of greenhouse warming. It is not the sun that is causing global warming.

Maybe you should first look

Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 1:45am.

Maybe you should first look into why other planets are warming up too ?

(hint: It's not humans)

UPDATE: Here's a list of links for your use . . .

Planets: Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto

Satellites: Enceladus, (Uranus) and Triton (Neptune)

/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال

As I explained in my previous

Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:35am.

As I explained in my previous comment, the sun is not warming, in fact, the sun has showed a slight cooling trend since 1960.

"Other planets are warming up too."

Its seems to be climate change denial gospel that all the planets are warming, the sun is causing it , and that is exarctly what is happening here on Earth. I find it amusing that climate change deniers chronically swear up and down that our technology is too undeveloped to prove a warming here on Earth, and yet they claim that all the other planets, where we never sent a thermometer are warming. The first thing you need to know to understand this topic is that our knowledge of temperature changes on other planets is very sparse.

The whole foundation for global warming on Mars is based on pictures taken from mars for the past decade, which show that the distribution of dust on Mars is changing due to dust storms. Its this changing reflectivity from dust storms that lead some scientists to speculate that Mars might be warming because the surface of the planet is darker and is absorbing more sunlight.

The warming that Pluto may be experiencing is a seasonal event. You must remember that it takes around two centuries for Pluto to get around the sun, and Pluto also has a highly eliptical orbit. The reason why Pluto may be warming is because a decade or so ago the planet was at its closest approach to the sun and its annual temperature is at its maximum. A recent study has preliminary data that Uranus is cooling.

For the rest of the planets, data is too sparse and speculative to prove warming. Even if the sun was warming, the changes in its brightness would be far to small for the far off planets to respond. Over the course of the 11 year solar cycle, the sun's output only changes about .1% which can only cause modest effects on Earth's temperature, and it gets even weaker the farther from the sun an object is.

Free Stinker, scientists are

Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:44am.

Free Stinker, scientists are not concerned about warming trends on other planets, the warming they've been warning us about for over 20 years about is right here on Earth, maybe its time this nation listened.

You are really really late to this party . . . The idea of manmade Global Warming has been skewered, flambaed, and shish-kabobbed thoroughly here in the past. But keep on running around yelling "The Sky Is Falling!" There are a few weak minded fools that you might be able to convince. Here's a bonus for you:Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Daily Telegraph - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Bonus Part II:

If you are a believer in Global Warming, you should realize that Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. Multiply that by the 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually that Humans can claim responsibility for, and you get a huge 0.2856% of global wrming that is human related. Got that? Even if we ignore the fact that Global warming stopped in 1998, worse case is that humans only are responsible for 0.3%

Zero point three percent. PAY ATTENTION LIBERALS!

/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال

SE007, Has found a new power source. WOW

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:25pm.

It is not the sun that is causing global warming. So then what is causing the heat? So, not only is the sun not causing global warming, its slightly masking it. The Sun is really an AC unit! I can't wait for the all CO-2 powered car. How about a course in Thermodynics Looks like you need to re-visit the 30 year ice record, 2007 was lower than 2010, You whine about a graph, that I post, Yet we see ZERO links from you. Put a thermometer in a black assfult parking lot, and yes the night time temp will be higher. CO2 lags temp by 800 years

You Didn't Build That.

SiberianExpress2007, Quick

Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:52pm.

SiberianExpress2007,

Quick question.

You say "Here is an empirical description of how science knows why -- Reconstructions of solar activity and global temperature show..."

By "Reconstructions" I assume you mean scientific/computer models.

Are you suggesting that empirical reality is the way it is because a model says so?

If so, I think you need to reassess your understanding how science works.

Too late big guy. It got banned already

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:55pm.

hey, I was caling for you in the other climate change thread from Mr. Markay. This troll from the frozen Russian north was talking about CO2 on Venus comparisons. We shot that down when Bill Nye the Science guy popped off a few months back. I sez, where is hydrodyn, he is an expert at this.

I is miss you. You is miss troll.