....................."do people reject {man made] anthropogenic climate change in it's entirety".............

Answer: Absolutely yes.

I will gladly take all the CO2 that can be possibly produced, and wish for more.

Millet (1,259-)

Does that also include air quality issues or should that be a seperate topic (or does it even matter)? This is always something that confuses me and another reason where I feel the climate change sellers go wrong is trying to lump too many issues into one catagory.

Well put Philip.

If one considers the earth a self contained sphere, and by using fossil fuels that release CO2, that would not normally be there then over time that can have an effect.

I think of it like a swimming pool. There is lots of water and if one person pees in there, it will still be okay to swim in. The pee getting diluted and other filtration systems that are in place takes care of it. But as more people pee in it, the less I want to take a swim.

Is there global warming/climate change? I do not know but some precisions may be warranted.

My argument against global warming and environmentalism in general is that no one scratches beneath the surface before setting grandiose policy changes that have humongous costs and may be even more environmentally damaging than before the "change". Let me play devils advocate and throw a few examples out there to think about. These are all theories base on things I've heard, read, or created myself, but aren't made to be portrayed as fact. Science tests theories and my point is in all of this that the theories in environmentalism become a so called "fact" before any test is completed or hypothesis is confirmed.

1) CO2 is a natural component that is consumed in photosynthesis and produced in respiration. Say that there's a balance. Say we stop producing fuel oil and fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions. Heating oil is eliminated and the developed world goes to some expensive widget Obama purports to be the cure all to our country's woes. The undeveloped world doesn't have the cash to pay for the widget and fuel oil is banned under the Kyoto treaty. Rampant deforestation occurs due to the large populations in the undeveloped world because wood is the only cost effective thing to heat their homes. The forests that were once a carbon sink and consumed CO2 are now gone. CO2 increases because the balance is disrupted because the CO2 that once was used in photosynthesis is no longer there and "global warming" burns the hair on the prescious polar bear's behind.

2) The oceans are large carbon sinks and through biological processes transport carbon down to the ocean floor where it eventually turns into oil and gas. Being environmentally conscience, San Diego decides that the wastewater outfalls into the ocean need to be treated to a much higher standard that will triple wastewater disposal costs. The biological processes that cause the ocean to be carbon sinks are limited by two factors: light and nutrients. The abundant life that exists around ocean outfalls ceases and the additional carbon that would have been consumed by the ocean is reduced because the nutrients that were once available are no longer there.

3) Cash for clunkers - The government pays everyone with a "gas guzzler" $4,500 to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that lead to chemicals "known to cause global warming". The average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program is 25.4 mpg and the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in is 15.8 mpg. The incremental difference is say 10 mpg. The energy used to produce the 1999 Ford explorer traded in burned on average 1 ton of coal to produce enough power melt and form the steel (I made this statistic up. My point is that I don't think anyone has looked at it). The net result is that by ending the car's useful life and melting it down to make another car, the net CO2 created if the program didn't exist is say "X tons". The net CO2 produced with the cash for clunkers program is "1.5(X) tons" (Again making this up). $3 billion is wasted in tax payers money to create more of a problem than the one they were trying to fix. We all feel good though because we wanted "change".

Here's another theory I'll throw in for free:
Global warming (anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic) causes earth temperatures to rise to what we haven't seen since we entered into the "mini ice age" that we're just now coming out of. Huge expanses of frozen tundra in Canada and Siberia are now habitable for plant species that haven't existed in these areas in years, are now growing. Other areas that were covered by ice for only portions of the year are now green all year around (I've heard Greenland was actually green when it was discovered). Huge carbon sinks are now created because of global warming. CO2 decreases and biological processes that help filter air and water are now increased. The natural balance continues and the planet continues to do what it has always done: cyclical cold and warming patterns.


Phillip

A side note on Cash for clunkers: The less financially fortunate who would benefit from the "government's $4,500" (actually our money) cannot qualify for the loan. The wealthier Americans who in no way need the "government's $4,500" (actually our $4,500) to purchase a new car, of course, easily qualify and get the unneeded cash.- Millet (1,258-)[/u]

I personally love the cash for clunkers deal as it has spured tons of buisness for an ailing auto industry. I hope they keep making money hand over foot and will be able to pay off all of that money they got from the American public.

Good points on the lack of "greenness" on it though Philip.

Millet I do not think anyone that does not qualify for a car loan should be trying to get one right now as I would hope the public learned their lesson about overextending themselves over the past year or so. Those folks can take the bus. I would hope that the rich folks in this country would be taking advantage of this deal as they are the only ones with money and we need to find a way to get them to start circulating some of it. True it is a shame that this sort of "incentive" is neccesary to get the rich to spend their money but it is working and that cannot be argued with. I do not believe it is the governments intention to hold onto GM any longer then they absolutly need to and if this helps get them back into the private market I say so be it. I believe in Keynesian capitalism as it is what made this country a world power.

Like I said in the previous post, I hope they make enough money to pay back what they got from the government (someday I will make enough money to pay your taxes for you though Philip ). I honestly have no problem paying my taxes or the increases that will come in the future reguarding topics I care about. Of course I will not always be happy with how they are spent and I too could manage to come up with a thousand government programs that are useless. Barack could personally come up with the cure for AIDS and some folks in this country would assail him for helping people that made bad choices. I do not agree with some things he does and I especially did not believe in the AIG or Goldman Sachs bailouts or the fact that their ex-employees are at the helm of many positions in our government. I do believe in buisness and the American dream just as I previously stated, Keynesian economics.

And yes Millet, PBS and NPR. Actually the BBC has been running good specials about the financial collapse (and yes, they do heavily scrutinize Obama's selections for posts and other actions). Yet as with all information I take everything with a grain of salt untill it has been confirmed by other reputible news sources. No source is perfect and there is generally I bias somewhere along the line, I am aware of this.

The daughter of one of my secretaries, works in Denver for an auto dealership that is selling cars under the cash for clunkers (CFC) government program. On one of the sales, it was later found out that the buyer for some reason did not qualify under the program, and therefore had to return the new auto. As it turned out, this caused a BIG problem, in that her "clunker" had already been smashed. - Millet (1,257-)

The government spends billions of dollars to own auto companies, and then the government spends billions more so people buy cars. I do not see how the government is going to get the money back. They are spending on both ends. Though it may eventually look like the government car companies are making money the government still spending.

The obama "administration" calls it borrowing your way out of dept. Sound like a good plan to you? It most certainly would not be my preferred method. - Millet (1,257-)

I don't really know how the topic of spending an "Earth Hour" got into Cash for Clunkers. but I'm sure allot of the members here have seen the Glen Beck You Tube on that very topic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE