cliff cooke (17:09:47) :

please lets get real about this as i and my familiey has kept records of weather for many hundreds of years. the mass hysteria caused by sandal wearing green leftist anarchists that are trying to be the voice of opinion in this world should be put in the trash can where they belong. climate has allways changed as time goes on, i live in scotland and it was covered in ice thousands of years ago and just a hundred years ago we had fog in our cities that we could not see more than a few yards but now it is clear. remember the earth is just a pin prick in universe

Not to be mean, but I hope your record-keeping is better than your grammar and punctuation…

The real reason Cap & Trade is being foisted on the world is it creates a 3 trillion dollar commodity market for you guessed it: hot air. Finally politicians have found a way to put a price on their most abundant resource! And for politicians there is no downside as nothing has to be actually produced. The real beneficiaries are the rich special interest who will get wealthier setting up and trading in this new commodities market.

The cost will be past to citizens who will pay more taxes to operate new regulatory bureaucracies and more for goods as business passes the cost along to them.

All this based on the premise that operating automobiles is resulting in global warming. Question: did Fred Flintstones truck fleet cause the last period of global warming or is global warming a cyclical event that is more affected by sun spot cycles. The Earth has had multiple tropical and glacial ages over the millennia. The most recent news is that the oceans of the world will be cooling for the next 25-30 years.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the most prevalent hot house gas is water vapor. Should citizens of earth try to stop the rain cycle?

And if we are going to implement Cap and Trade who will decide what the optimal CO2 carrying capacity of Earth is?

And there are questions about how to implement financial controls and reliably audit such a system. Will every person and business on the planet be issued C02 permits? Is the permit an asset a business can liquidate when it goes out of business? If a business in California goes out of business and sells its CO2 permit to a company in England, will a new company in California have to find another seller to open his business and replace lost jobs? After all, if there is an optimal CO2 carrying capacity then an increasing population of people and businesses means a lower standard of living and reduced CO2 allotment for each new person or business.

Upon their death can Mom and Dad leave their CO2 permits to their children? Should Mom and Dad be limited to having two children?

What about the countries that do not subscribe to Cap & Trade. Will multi-national companies export new construction and jobs to 3rd world non-subscribing countries? And the flipside, will the people of the Amazon miss out on new opportunities because an American company bought 1000s of acres to be left unused to acquire carbon sequestration credits.

There are many problems with Leiberman-Warner. I oppose it because of its $544 Billion subsidy to the nuclear industry. Though I disagree with many here, I appreciate your cooperation in helping to “kill” this bill.

My guess is that even many good scientists would oppose cloud seeding or climate intervention. Beside the obvious dangers, it is a no-brainer for them that a reduction in life-style is a good thing. This is the simplest and safest approach to the GW “problem” in their minds.

What they seem to not realize is that a strong economy brought about by the freedom to innovate is our best bet to solve any problem.

In fact, I do not see why the Indians and the Chinese do not make a collaboration to build one such prototype. How expensive can one ship be for two huge countries that have thriving economies.

In a year they can take pressure off their backs and say they really care about warming and it can be stopped.

I have thought of a catchy slogan for this:

“Cap the clouds and trade the winds” .

The whole AGW IPCC business is not about climate, but about control of the world populations ( because millions if not billions will die if these foolish plans of carbon limits are implemented) and of the economies.

By providing the world with a climate control switch the urgency of AGW slogans is undermined and rational thoughts can prevail. If it is in our hands to stop warming by seeding clouds, within a year, carbon projects which need fifty years to take hold, (and that only if the Indians and Chinese sign up), have no chance.

But, but but, there is no reason not to build such a prototype and demonstrate that it works in changing the albedo of a specific cloud. This will not affect world climate one iota and it will prove feasibility. It can shut up cap and trade by saying : if necessary we cool the climate artificially instead of strangling the world economies and killing millions.

If cooling continues it can just be shelved until and if it is needed. If warming picks up, world community builds the 50 necessary to control world albedo.

It is really the only thing I have seen in this climate business that one can experiment with in real time and not decades ahead, without dire consequences, and get a good weather switch on hand. This will buy time until fusion comes commercially on line and CO2 is no longer released, which will show in real numbers the nonsense of the anthropogenic CO2 band wagon.

Don’t you dare fiddle with my climate until you can demonstrate that you know what the hell you are doing. And a computer model is NOT a demonstration (especially an IPCC one).

I welcome that debate. I hope EVERYONE would. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know how the machinations of congress work in any sort of detail. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think the B-L-W bill was a particularly good one. But from where I sit I think a vigorous discussion of the ways it was weak would have been far more preferable to sandbagging it. Instead, we’re likely to be accosted with YouTube videos of the Senate clerk droning on for 13 hours reading the bill, wasting everyone’s time, with voice-overs about who is really responsible for the “do nothing congress”. If I were a Dem I’d jump on that big time. And for what purpose? After all, Bush was going to veto the thing anyway. Let him take the fall. That’s what I’m saying.

Great idea! But I predict it will be rejected because it would involve human manipulation of the environment. Something would be invoked such as the possibility of one of those boats bumping a porpoise or something.

Silliness is an expensive luxury. But America does not know yet that it can’t afford it anymore.

FYI Sherwood Forest in Nottingham – shire while much reduced from its former size is real, alive and well. I know because I used to live in that neck of the woods – pun intended.

The AGW brigade are also still out there, they haven’t gone away and they will be back. Bogus as their religion is.

I listened to it. Simply put, it sucked. Nothing but a bunch of debunked arguments.

“MSNBC says that Reid will pull it and wait for the arrival of the new Congress next year before retrying.”

Sounds like good timing. It will be the middle of winter and we can talk about capping the CO2 put out by home furnances. Of course, it might be a Cold winter, but them’s the breaks. Given the price of heating oil, it will likely be a cold winter inside no matter what the weather does.