Comments on: California’s crazy cap &trade scheme

By: Bob Fairlane

Bob Fairlane — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:51:27 +0000

Global Warming and Carbon Credits are just a scam to tax white people and pass off their wealth and businesses to those who hate us.

By: John Parsons

John Parsons — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:22:48 +0000

I’m sure California will greatly miss you. Where ‘ya goin’ — Alabama? Mississippi? Doc

By: John Parsons

John Parsons — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:19:23 +0000

Bobeast–You conflate “caring for real human lives” with immediate financial benefit. Some of us “liberals” care about the whole planet for the long haul. You are thinking small and short term. That will screw up the lives of far more people and far more dramatically. Dr. John Parsons

By: John Parsons

John Parsons — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:12:02 +0000

Thanks Seriously, I know it’s difficult to have to continually replow the same field over and over, but these ignorant people have to be addressed. Thanks for the thoughtful exposition. Dr. John

By: John Parsons

John Parsons — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:06:12 +0000

The Baron exhorts you to learn about the CERN study by going to a wack-job conspiracy theory website. I suggest that you read the abstract of the CERN study itself. You will come away with a completely different view. Go to the source instead of being led around by ideologues. Dr. John Parsons

By: seriously

seriously — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:27:19 +0000

I can not believe we are still going round in circle over this. I will put in plain English as I feel there is no need to make this a complicated matter. If you took every piece of organic matter on the planet today and burn it you would not realise as much CO2e into the atmosphere as we have done by burn Carboniferous fossil fuels that we have dug up. If you think about it this is additional carbon that is going into the carbon cycle then undoubtly this will then off balance this cycle; as you can imagine this carbon cycle effects everything from weather to the acidy of the ocean. The consequence of this change in the cycle is only being documented recently i.e with the increase of global warming, which incidentally should be gauged on the sea level rise rather than temperature due to temperature being fluctuating and the melt of ice being a more constant indicator, or extreme weather events. However, the evidence is piling up that if you would like to the earth to stay the way it is now we will have to keep the biogeochemical balance as it is, there is no doubt that we are changing this and therefore there will be consequences of this. I have studied three degrees in the subject from leading universities and now working at a one of the biggest organisation in the world advising them on environmental risk; say that you do not have to believe me read James Lovelock’s ‘A final warning the vanishing face of Gaia’ or ‘Sustainable energy without the hot air’. These books I believe can explain this complicated subject with reason.
Whether I agree or disagree with carbon trading is a whole different matter however whether global climate change is occurring is matters long agree upon by almost every climate scientist on this planet.

By: The Baron

The Baron — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:15:38 +0000

And on what do you base such a declaration (i.e. “the statement that carbon dioxide has no significant effect on global temperature, is simply wrong”), sir?
The scientific testing model is simple-testing hypotheses via hard data, thus confirming or refuting said theories depending on the results achieved. When the data do not confirm the theory, there is obviously a flaw and it needs to be altered or discarded. Every piece of data thus far has refuted the declaration that carbon dioxide levels drive climate change, from the graph above (and many more like it) to ice core samples taken in Greenland and at both poles.
CERN experiments, in fact, have demonstrated that cosmic rays are the most significant driver of weather on the planet, stating, “…cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through on-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation….this has significant implications for climate science because water vapor and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.” Read for yourself: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16620
As long as we continue to allow politics, money and emotion to sway scientific conclusions, the world will continue to flounder in ignorance and ignore facts.

By: Chip Knappenberger

Chip Knappenberger — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:08:43 +0000

I completely agree that the California scheme, in and of itself, will do nothing to forestall whatever global warming is to come, but the statement that carbon dioxide has no significant effect on global temperature, is simply wrong. Its role may be overstated, but it does exist in sufficient magnitude to be “significant”—not that such a fact alone should mandates any type of action.

By: Mark in Sandy Eggo

Mark in Sandy Eggo — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:01:12 +0000

The willful suicide that my adopted state of California is doing is sickening. The government class, especially at the state level, is so detached from reality that this state no longer has a chance. In a year and a half, my son graduates high school, and I and departing this state with my > $100,000 a year salary. But not to worry. There will be 3 illegal aliens right behind me working off the books and consuming more services.

By: bobeast

bobeast — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:28:08 +0000

Liberals blindly following their ideology without considering the effect on real human lives.

The irony is how often they attempt to put on the mantle of compassion, as they gently and with great superiority, twist the knife.