Carcarius says:

It is the context in which people discuss climate change that is the issue. Whether it is Anthropic or not is the question. There isn’t sufficient evidence that it is anthropic in nature, yet there is overwhelming evidence that Earth conditions change over time, which has an effect on weather patterns. Therefore, it is simply a phenomenon we must adapt to and not blame on our own actions over a period of time.

One must be aware of the motives of those who declare incorrectly that Earth changes are the result of human activity. One should question why one group would find it appropriate to tax another group based on their output of an arbitrary substance (carbon) which is actually a necessary component of a tried-and-true, working ecosystem.

In short, plants “breathe” carbon and release oxygen into the atmosphere. Mammals breathe oxygen and release carbon (CO^2). This has been a harmonious relationship from time immemorial. Attempting to create a profit engine from the ecosystem we all rely on is both genius and diabolical at the same time. It all depends on your personal philosophy. Do you believe in slavery or don’t you?

Guyver says:

22, Bobbo,

The climate scientists say it is AGW. YOU start by saying the evidence is not sufficient and then move to say that it is incorrect to say so. THAT is running down the slippery slope uncaring about the terrain.

No it’s not. The AGW theory is being pushed by people with ties to the IPCC which does nothing more than push a political agenda. There is no consensus and there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of proving the theory true.

AGW also ignores other possible theories such as dare I say sun spot trends on the Sun? What about the climate change on other planets that are also happening at the same time? Is this due to AGW as well?

CO2 output is NOT ARBITRARY. It is the consequence of burning coal and oil our primary energy sources. How silly to be COMPLETELY WRONG.

How silly it is to assume something is causal when you have no proof of it. Let me guess, the self-serving computer simulations based on the assumption that CO2 is causal is somehow “scientific” proof?

Cap and Trade as currently designed, or as it could be modified, is an approach that I also am highly skeptical of but not for ANY of the nonsense you scribe. What notion are you a “slave” to??? Rhetorical diarrhea.

It’s a tax scheme to advance certain people’s agendas to regulate something that is a byproduct of every living creature on this planet.

clancys_daddy says:

Then again I think most people are idiots political party doesn’t make a difference. Evolution keeps proving that I’m right.

Greg Allen says:

>> Al Gore refuses to answer any questions about climate change. At least you can say that he’s consistent.

Are you kidding me? Gore has answered UNTOLD ZILLIONS of questions about climate change!

O’Reilly wouldn’t know real science if it hit him in the face like a wet luff. Gore was smart not to talk with that liar.

Animby says:

Gee, Al looks like’s really slimmed down! Must be the effort of carrying that Nobel medallion and his increasingly heavy bank statements. Good exercise.

By the way, Al: I don’t blame you for not going on O’Really. He’s a douchebag and two douchebags talking would be ludicrous.

Another thing, Al, concerning cap and trade. There are two newly active volcanoes up in Iceland spewing out CO2 like crazy. Like you, I have no proof of my assertions, but I suspect they have exceeded their caps and are currently trading with China and Brazil. What do you think of this? Shouldn’t natural sources of CO2 be taxed even more. I know Iceland is bankrupt but surely they could find a few kronurs to buy some credits from one of your associates.

One last thing. Is it true you’re producing another movie to explain all the inaccuracies of your last film? And is it true the title is to be An Inconsiderate Ruse?

Thanks, Al. Lookin’ good my man.

Uncle Patso says:

One giant glaring fact is almost entirely ignored in the whole debate about global warming or climate change or AGW, “cap & trade” and other alternative energy strategies.

For the last century and a half, more or less, human society has come to rely more and more on fossil fuels, mainly petroleum and coal, to fuel its economies. (Some of) Human society has gotten quite wealthy from this. But now most of the petroleum is gone, and the easily obtainable reserves are almost completely exhausted. No matter what, unless giant breakthroughs in fusion power happen _very_ quickly, the entire world is about to be quite a bit poorer. The shift has already begun with the rise in the cost of oil and its byproducts.

Try to remember that. Try to keep it in mind. Other than market fluctuations, for the foreseeable future, energy will never again be as cheap as it is today; human society will be quite a bit poorer. This is causing a lot of people to make trouble, trying to “get theirs” before it all goes away, especially including energy companies. Trying to maximize current profits, they fund and support all kinds of “research” and PR to try to convince people that there’s no problem (“it can’t happen here”), if they could just get the government off their backs. This will only get worse from here, so be vigilant: large numbers of people are lying to you and others are merely taken in. Don’t fall for it. Be skeptical.

bobbo, never took latin, just read too much says:

Hey Uncle===thanks. Yea, its been so long since I last used that word, I was going phonetically and only aiming for the ballpark. But I did have it wrong, not a typo as is my most common error.

Please correct me at will, but don’t wear yourself out?

Also===to return the favor===what do you think the odds are that technology will provide clean renewable energy cheaper than todays burning of carbon? I’m just wag-ing that the odds are pretty good?===Maybe some discomfort before the cost curves are reached = but the future is so bright, I gotta wear shades.

bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes Dogma says:

Animby–I don’t know what the “it” is that you refer to but in the spirit of no sarcasm I do “care” what every pin head on this blog posts. As that great mental health expert said (forgot his name) we all have to care, just don’t care too much. I think I still have things a bit lopsided because indeed I don’t take offense where others do. Makes for an off center collision. What I think is 90% funny, others take as 90% insulting.

I do look forward to each post you make and the majority of my non-direct responses come from general approval. Half of my actual responses are half made up—but not all the way.

The two douche bags was accurate and funny. Each drips vinegar sourced from different bitter fruit.

Dexton7 says:

Cap/Trade is a lie… just like Al Gore and O’Riely are both liars from different camps. I can’t believe that some people on here would willingly pay a carbon tax to the carbon criminal Al Gore – based on fairy tales.

The climate data was cooked up by the IPCC and the tons of leaked Emails and documents from ‘Climate Gate’ prove it. Many of the authors of the leaked materials even confessed to it.

Want real environmentalism? How about being concerned about the plastics, vocs, mercury, and other pollutants that are released into our air, water and food? You almost never hear about these. It’s all about the scary carbon dioxide that plants breathe..

I’m all for protecting the environment – but not at the cost of having some a-hole getting rich from a national or global scam and still not actually doing anything for the environment.