Every bit helps, tell your friends, lobby your local politician about the hoax
that ‘Global warming’ is.

Perhaps even the NOAA will think twice about spreading such propoganda.

Great replies. I would bet that you are familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy.

You make no mention of the efforts you’re taking to stop urban crime, advance education among economically-depressed peoples, or relief for Darfur. I won’t do you the disservice of accusing you of dodging those questions. They weren’t on the table.

Nice misdirection, Ed.

The difference is you’re telling us “skeptics” that we’re all mad and that AGW is real and a catastrophe is in progress. Therefore you MUST be doing something to mitigate the problem, such as not using a computer (oops!), giving up a modern lifestyle to return to a hunter-gatherer survival existence (oops!), etc, ad nauseum. Since you’re not doing any of those things, which, insidentally, are the only way to reduce human industrial CO2 emissions to any meaningful degree, you must not really believe in the catastrophe.

Dodge all you like, but your presence here speaks volumes about your commitment.

You made no mention of the sorts of things you are doing in pollution reduction and energy conservation, so it appears that you have intentionally diodged that issue. I’ll ask the question again Ed, other than complain about others, what have you done to practice what you preach?

Sometimes this place appears like a rabbit hole, complete with hatters.

Anthony, my question is this: When do you criticize Exxon Mobil for their photoshopping work promoting the idea that there is no global warming, that there is little or no human effect on warming, and there is little humans can do? If it’s the photoshopping that concerns you, and if you’re fair, you’ll criticize photoshopping wherever it appears to advance an agenda contrary to the evidence. The history of your efforts here is impressive, but not at all what I was talking about.

You make no mention of the efforts you’re taking to stop urban crime, advance education among economically-depressed peoples, or relief for Darfur. I won’t do you the disservice of accusing you of dodging those questions. They weren’t on the table.

I’m fail to see what relevance my conservation efforts have to this discussion, other than your attempts to find a wider barn for your commenters to shoot at.

You need to get cracking on your comments, they’re due today.

Depending on your definitions, it may be an awful lot closer to correct than you may think.

Remember, this is a temporary situation. Once China and India achieve basic affluence, they will become much more environmentally responsible. The cleanup will probably take a lot less time than it took the industrialized west. But first things first.

We have cleaned the air while expanding our economy, and in fact clean air has played a huge role in the expansion.

This is true. But it did not occur until we were very well off economically. And the east will follow the same path. It’s all part of a demographic process.

I must respectfully beg to disagree. He unleashed party operatives to interfere in the dispute. I think that was a direct and serious threat to the democratic process and did the country terrible, terrible harm. (This is quite apart form any opinion of Bush, which is beside the point.)

Also, I heard his concession speech and did not consider it to be gracious. YMMV, of course. Besides, once the court hand bunged him 7-2, what would have been his choice in the matter?

Your mileage may vary, of course. I know I am in a minority among my liberal brethren in this opinion.

Lucy, are you British, by any chance?

While the battle continues, it would be nice to see a post on “Does CO2 even have a greenhouse effect as stated officially”

I think it is a greenhouse gas and has a small effect, but without positive feedback loops it amounts to little more than spit in the ocean.

Naturally. The poor are always more vulnerable.

Look what baleful effects the combo of the current global cooling and the ethanol crunch have had on the poor. We have seen sporadic food riots all over the third world.

And direct mitigation efforts (on the Kyoto or Stern Models) harm the poor FAR more than the non-poor.

No one here is in favor of pollution only CO2 is not a pollutant. The differences between CO2 and lead for instance are numerous. You seem to be pro-human and that is good. Some of the radical greenies would like to see most of us gone (themselves excluded of course).

Mr. Darrell’s implication is clear: the U.S. is a filthy polluter, and if we only followed his expert advice, America wouldn’t be such a dirty polluter. But Darrell’s assumption is completely false.

No, Jeez. It was your assumption. I responded to your claim that cleaning the air would harm poor people.

The U.S. in fact refutes your claims. We have cleaned the air while expanding our economy, and in fact clean air has played a huge role in the expansion. Getting lead out of our gasoline raised the national IQ. Smarter people use resources more efficiently, make more money, pay more taxes, stay out of poverty better, expand the economy more.

As I said, your original claims, that we can’t clean up the air without damaging the poor, are simply absurd.

“The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.”

Straw man argument, Ed. Let us know when you have any actual science. Thanks for playing.

You’re right, it’s a straw man argument, completely unevidenced. I didn’t make it, you guys did. Let the world know when the [snip we don't use that word here] have some real science. Please get out of the game until you do.

That was a really excellent response! Folks like Mr. Darrell are long on Malthusian/Luddite guilt trips for others, but I suspect very short on personal charitable giving themselves. Darrell states:

The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.

Mr. Darrell’s implication is clear: the U.S. is a filthy polluter, and if we only followed his expert advice, America wouldn’t be such a dirty polluter. But Darrell’s assumption is completely false.

Maybe Mr. Darrell is a young’un, but I remember Pittsburgh in the 1950’s, when you couldn’t look across the river and see the other side due to all the industrial smoke. Now the air is clear. And I remember when the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland caught fire in the ’60’s from all the industrial pollution. Now people fish there, and the EPA says the fish are fit for human consumption.

Today the U.S. is one of the very cleanest, if not the cleanest countries on Earth — with a much higher population.

We’ve already cleaned up the country without the help of the Darrells. Now, the most effective thing Mr. Darrell could do for the poor would be to dig deep into his own pocket, and give his dollars to any charity he thinks is doing a good job helping poor folks, instead of telling everyone else what bad people they are.

Telling other folks [that's us] that we should be taxed to fund Darrel’s great ideas reminds me of a point that economics professor Walter E. Williams often makes: when you dig in your own pocket to help out someone less fortunate, that is charity. But when you want the government to dig onto someone else’s pocket… that’s something completely different.

Well, I dispute that CO2 (plant food) is a pollutant. But for the sake of argument let’s assume it is. As jeez mentioned, ethanol from corn (which is supposed to be carbon neutral but apparently isn’t) has caused food shortages and even food riots. So, an attempt to clean the air of a “pollutant”, ends up hurting the poor.

Ed, this is not about lead or mercury poisoning or particulates in the air. It is about one of the most natural and necessary substances there is. Furthermore, CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels for energy. Energy is vital to the world’s economy. Damage to the economy can lead to political instability which can lead to war. One of the least consequences of war is damage to the environment.