Climate Change

The earth cooled in the 1970's...then it warmed in the 1980's and 1990's and has been cooling slightly or holding steady since about 2000. Nobody wants to deny that.

What many deny is that humans are the cause of these temperature fluctuations which have been going on for centuries....since the earth began.

If CO2 is the culprit for the warming...why havent we been warming for the last 14 years as the CO2 has become even more concentrated? It was a nice theory but reality just doesnt show temperatures are rising anymore.

So IF humans are causing these temperature fluctuations now....what or who was causing them before?

Maybe it warmed in the 80's and 90's because the cold war ended hahaha.

I'm still waiting for this:
http://youtu.be/oQNkVmdicvA

I have long argued that the Earth has been having warming and cooling periods since time began. But this is the first ime i have read that it was one of the reasons for the Mongolian expansion. But it makes sense to me that if Mongolia warmend, there would be more food available to increase the population of people and horses, so that would encourage expansion, just as increasing cold, less food, fewer babies would slow the population increase.
Ernie


Alec Torres argues the rise of the Mongolian horde may offer evidence that climate change may be more of a natural occurrence than a human problem for National Review. From Global Warming & the Mongolian Empire’s Rise: “…[A] recent study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that there is a correlation between increasing global temperatures and the rise of the Mongolian empire… For global-warming alarmists, there’s one problem: The Mongolian empire, fueled by a ‘dramatic increase in temperatures,’ grew to power in the early 1200s, over 500 years before the first Industrial Revolution, when man began pumping large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere...if global warming was behind the rise of the Mongolian empire, it was surely natural, not man-made. Likewise, when alarmists claim that global warming will cause extreme weather, that may or may not be true. But in determining whether man is to be blamed or not, it is worth looking back to the Mongolians

Ernie,

Some good points. One thing that you mentioned was interesting...that under warmer conditions the Mongolians prospered more. I beleive that under warmer conditions most of humans would also propser more so than under cold ice age like conditions. So in my view a warming earth would be less of a problem than a cooling one.

However, It is now confirmed that this winter in many parts of the Midwest and Northeast has been the coldest on record in 100 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/coldest-winter-record-last-100-234323648.html

These variations in weather have very little if anything to do with humans. These changes and fluctuations in climate and weather have always ocurred...and much more dramatically than anything we are currently seeing.

Even though this is an older article it is very relevant to our discussion. The average weather forcaster...meteorologist is more skeptical of "global warming" than the average citizen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?_r=0

As far as global hot spots and global cold spots go,....there is about so much heat on earth at any given time. When it is warm in Alaska, it tends to be cold down here in the Midwest. The air does get pushed around.

I think that censorship is when someone is prevented from [u]publishing[/u] something.

It's not censorship if a website or magazine or even a newspaper declines to publish something or give column-inches for free to someone or to something it considers obviously untrue.

For example, an anti-GMO website isn't "censoring" Monsanto if they decline to publish or link to articles by the Monsanto PR staff. They would be censoring if they blew up Monsanto's printing presses or got laws passed to forbid anyone from printing something (on Monsanto's dime).

A scientific journal about geology seldom gives equal time to Flat Earth proponents. My guess is that the "Flat Earth Monthly" (if there are any magazines like that) don't give away free full-page ads to NASA for satellite photography supporting the "anti-Flat-Earth theory".

Those aren't censorship, so why should Reddit be criticized for drawing the line somewhere? They found that discussions became more informative and less dogmatic and less "uninformed and outspoken" - that's enough reason for any website to ban a group.

I'd like to know what other things Reddit has banned, to get a perspective on this ban.

Who is Reddit to say climate change denial is "obviously untrue? "
They say that their discussion become "less uninformed" ( more informed) when one side of the argument is banned? People are more informed when they only read posts from those who support just one side of an issue? Really?

I don't read Reddit but many (young) people do.

I was bemused by the NYT article that said that "among TV forecasters, about half of whom have a degree in meteorology", only about 1/3rd of them believed cliamte change was “caused mostly by human activities.”

Even the forcasters who have any credentials trained in meteorology, not climate science or geophysics or modeling. Half of them are just performers and the other half studied chnages on an hourly and daily scsale, so why would anyone separate nthem out from the general public when asking them about long-term effects they never studied?

“There is a little bit of elitist-versus-populist tensions,” Mr. Henson said. “There are meteorologists who feel, ‘Just because I have a bachelor’s degree doesn’t mean I don’t know what’s going on.’ ”

The part of the article that I would call to this threads attention is this:

"A study published in the January 2009 newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, the professional association of earth scientists, found that while nearly 90 percent of some 3,000 climatologists who responded agreed that there was evidence of human-driven climate change, 80 percent of all earth scientists and 64 percent of meteorologists agreed with the statement ."

Even more tellingly:
" Only economic geologists who specialized in industrial uses of materials like oil and coal were more skeptical."

Gee, the fossil fuel industry is not yet convinced that doubling or tripling the Earth's CO2 level might be A Bad Thing.



This message was edited Mar 14, 2014 6:59 PM

If the HOT EARTH SOCIETY is gathered for a private meeting they cerftainly have the right to not allow non members take part in the private discussions, but if it is considered a public forum or discussions and they do not allow everyone, from however many sides, to participate, that is certainly censoring. And that can be done either by excluding, shouting down, drowning out with boos, or even hitting them over the head with a club.

But by doing that censoring, they can no longer call it a debate or an open discussion. It will only be a Kool Aid Party. limited to True Believers.

As i said before, the Hot Earthers lost their discussion when they tried to change the name of their Cult from Global Warmers to Climate Change. I have still not heard anyone from either side deny that the Climate DOES, IS,, and ALWAYS HAS, Changed.

Ernie

>> Who is Reddit to say climate change denial is "obviously untrue? "

They are entitled to their opinion, since they own the website, and want to attract discussions that will attract more people that will attract more people.

Who am I to say that human-caused climate change is obviously here now and worse is almost certainly coming, and will probably be very damaging to agriculture in the short run (10s to a few 100 years) and greatly change what-grows-where in the long run (a few to many centuries)?

It's my opinion. I think it is as well supported as a young science CAN support anything. If I owned a magazine it would color my editorial policy. Partly because I think that corrective action will already need 100s of years, and the fix-time probably stretches longer, the longer we wait for the coal and oil industry and their devout followers to see the evidence.

DG does not ban ONE SIDE of politics, it bans the topic.
Haven't we all here (or many of us have said) been more educated here with both sides able to comment?

Rick,
I am always pleased to see you taking part in these discussions.

There does not seem to be any disagreement that a period of Global Warming took place during the Mongolian expansion, so how do you explaing the tremendous amount of warming that took place before Man started polluting the skies?

Or for that matter when the earlier Ice Ages ended and the Glaciers melted?

Also Rick, I learned the Earth was not flat when I learned Celestial Navigaton and how to find my location on the Ocean with a sextant forty or fifty years ago.. So you can call me a Coolie, but i am really not a Flat Earther.

Ernie

Thankful for free speech and freedom of the press.

And thankful I don't get all my worldviews from something like Reddit.

>> but if it is considered a public forum or discussions and they do not allow everyone, from however many sides, to participate, that is certainly censoring.

I'm surprised that a Libertarian thinks a privately owned corporation is obligated to publish things for free, even if they don't want to.

The mere fact that they wanted relatively calm discussions based on facts and logic is a justifiable reason to withdraw their invitation to publish someone's opinions for free.

Censorship is when someone uses political or other power to prevent someone from publishing something.

It's not censorship if Person A refuses to publish Person B's opinions for free.

Maybe, before there was an effectively-infinite number of cable channels, broadcast television had some obligation to give "access" to minority opinions, since licensed channels had a natural monopoly over the broadcast spectrum. I forget how that was handled.

But no one has any grounds for complaint if a website turns them away. There are plenty of other websites where they can compete in "the marketplace of ideas".

Nothing stops climate change Deniers from publishing anything they want on their own websites or politically conservative TV channels, magazines or newspapers.

Deniers who feel hurt are totally entitled to twit and tweak Reddit for being hypocritical about saying they promote open-access debate for any point of view no matter how offensive or universally disagreed with.

Clearly, they found something that was outside even their limits.maybe, if they are based in India (heat, drought, poverty, famine and monsoons), they took it personally that some people argue against mitigating eventual global warming, variable extreme weather that will harm many crops, and exacerbate extreme storms.

Like people in Holland or low-lying islands being touchy about denying (observed) sea level rises.

Ernie, I won't debate with you that the idea that
BECAUSE there have been Ice Ages and interglacials and climate fluctuations in the past
THEREFORE
doubling or tripling the CO2 in the atmosphere - to a level much more than it has been in the last 400,000 years will not have a huge and probably catastrophic effect on global climate.

"Does gasoline cause fires?"

"There were fires in the past, before gasoline was extracted.
Therefore, no, gasoline does not cause fires.
I can fill my basement with gasoline a foot deep in complete safety".

You may actually be arguing something more subtle than i read in your comments. I admit that I didn't try to drill down and read more into those comments after i recognized them as the same words I heard on Fox News years or decades ago.

Blaming any evidence of climate change on the fact that "there have always been CHANGES" is like telling an arson investigator that there HAVE been fires without firebombs, therefore this building was not fire bombed.

It doesn't address the evidence, it just discards it using a glib sound sound bite.

Sorry, I'm sure you must have more reasoned thought behind it than I found.,

I also started to lose interest in this thread when you seemed to be defending ignoring (disastrous, human-caused, unprecedented) climate change because a few small tribes could repopulate the Americas. I don't see a connection between that and any discussion of climate change that I want to spend time on.

If you mean that humanity would probably not become totally extinct, so there is no reason to do anything about it, once again, I think I should bow out of this thread.

I very much respect you, but I haven't understood your arguments or even where you're coming from for a while now.

I do think it comes from political dogma, and that anything that contradicts or threatens the dogma is not going to have any effect.



This message was edited Mar 14, 2014 6:57 PM

In this thread, I haven't yet heard any "Denier" arguments that seemed to me to hold water, or any counter-arguments that disproved or explained away the many observed observed facts.

Sadly, almost every "Denier" counter-argument here, I had already heard years ago as sound bites from Fox News. I didn't find much validity in them, then, either.

I appreciate the link that back40bean found. It summarizes very concisely why it seems unarguable (to me) that anthropogenic climate change is already observable. I'm sad to say that it changed my overall belief from (mostly proved and we're about to see gross changes" to "conclusively proved, and blatant changes are here now".

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

But then, I thought it was already totally convincing back in the 1980s that there would eventually be huge, global, serious consequences to the CO2 spike we are causing.

The Keeling curve (extended back 400,000 years) was obvious then and now. That's on the first page of the link that back40bean found. I thought it was unarguable. Clear as a brick going through a window.

HOW can it not be obvious? I understand THAT some other people disagree, but I still don't understand HOW they can look at that curve and not say "Oh, darn, we are

The only counter-arguments I can think of are "maybe God will intervene" and "who knows - maybe totally unforseen climate factors will magically make the brick flying through the window NOT break the window".

Maybe I should not call the last one "magically". Climate science is such a young science that anything is possible. It might be 10 or 100 times worse than I think, or 10 or 100 times better. 100 times better than the Keeling Curve LOOKS would at least be survivable with only "minor" famines and population migrations.

I'm not reassured by the idea that Ice Ages have reduced hominid populations to just small tribes, or that meteor impacts have killed off high percentages of land species, "but something comes back", or "a few tribes could re-populate a whole continent" with Stone Age cultures.

My idea of the climate change debate is that we DO want to prevent the world population from being halved or decimated. It would bother me if most of North America and all of the tropics became a desert, or a swamp, or alternated between the two randomly for a few centuries.

This discussion has convinced me that discussing climate change is a lot like discussing fundamental political dogmas. No one is going to change their mind, no matter what is said or cited.

These facts have not impacted this discussion noticeably:
- ice core measurements of historic CO2 levels,
- simple physics of IR absorption,
- measured sea level rise,
- measured sea surface warming,
- glacier retreats unprecedented since the end of the last Ice Age,
- shrnking Arctic sea ice,
- ocean acidification
and
- 100-year-unusual temperature extremes in local weather (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html)

It even seems that opinions about serious anthropogenic climate change is divided along political lines.

Maybe that's why neither side is moved by things that seem obvious to the other side.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother formulating an "on the other hand" set of "maybes", and will be mostly dropping out of the thread.

Rick,
I have only been watching Fox News for a few years, but i have been watching the climate change both ways for over 80 years, so i do not think we can blame my thoughts about it on Fox.

I am sorry you are closing your mind to the possibility, however remote, that the Global Warming may not be the disaster you now fear. That is very similar to the behavior of the people that fear GMO, and have closed their minds to anything else.

I am still open minded on both subjects and am only waiting on actual proof that the increased Carbon will actually cause more changhe than the naturally occuring Climate Changes, as well as whether GMO grain will actually cause harm. I have no hesitation about changing my mind as actual facts warrant.

I have never seen or read Reddit, and if they are a private discussion, they have the right to exclude who ever they wish, but by doing so, they cannot truthfully claim to be holding an open discussion. There are Climatologists, equally educated, on both sides of the question.

And once again. I do not DENY that the climate is changing. I have not yet seen any actual proof that the Carbon is what is causing the change, nor any proof that the changes are permanent.

Kindest regards,
Ernie

>> I am sorry you are closing your mind to the possibility, however remote, that the Global Warming may not be the disaster you now fear.

No, I'm just not planning to discuss that much on this thread.

>> I am still open minded on both subjects and am only waiting on actual proof that the increased Carbon will actually cause more changhe than the naturally occuring Climate Changes,

I would say that is the only reasonable course, except that (probably) the climate has a lot of inertia, and it might not flip as fast I think likely. It might take several or many more decades before the existing evidence of change becomes undeniable evidence of huge, serious change.

Meanwhile the source of the problem is gettng worse at what, 9 billion tons per year emitted?
My eyeball-esitmate of the Keeling Curve is around 20 ppm per decade.
If it takes another 50 years to convince more than the "nearly 90% of climatologists" , that would raise the level of CO2 to 500 PPM. The natural level ove 400,000 years was 180 to 280.

That's why I'm all a-twitter about denying that we should do anything baout it now.

I admit, it is a good question WHAT we should do and how much the current generation owes to all future generations while it still subject too some doubt: are we gambling our current comfort against a 5% drop in world popuklation, or a 20% drop?

One qustion is how much doubt there is that somethign moderately serious is happening.

Another question is how much risk there is that soemthing utterly disasterous on a planetary and human-civilization-damaging-level.

Unfotunately, I suspect that even if people admitted there was a 10% or 20% risk of gobal famines or war, we would still resist "regulations" or "taxes" until the "risk" was obviously greater than 85%, in other words, already actually occuring. In other words, much too late.

>> There are Climatologists, equally educated, on both sides of the question.

Apparently, around 90% on one side and 10% on the other.

I guess that is 90% agree that "human-caused-change" is occurring. I assume that few professional climatologists would say that the consequences WILL be disastrous for humans. Who knows how serious the effects will be, since the science is still in its infancy and their main tool is "modeling", and what they are trying to model has never happened on this planet before.

(The following is a political opinion and hence about as valid or provable as flatulence.)

I think that we "should" take actions, even if they are painful, to avert a 15% or 25% risk of major global devastation or even "minor" famines likely to kill billions of humans.


You do know that the "runaway" greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Venus causes temperatures around the melting point of lead? True, Earth probably won't do a "runaway greenhouse" until the Sun becomes 10% brighter. I just hate to say "probably not" when the "maybe so" would cause (literally) Giga-deaths.

And I'm not even mainly worrying about the long-term, probable species-disaster if we don't reverse the Keeling Curve. I'm more worried about the near term random fluctuations that will cause crop failures and famines - the "minor" climate changes that some people will dismiss as having "unproven causes".

I figure that we're likely to stumble into nuclear wars before we get past the random climate fluctuations and into major warming and coastal drowning. When that many people are starving and entire regions know that rich nations killed them because they were unwilling to curb carbon emissions, major wars seem more likely than convincing the deniers.

>> I have not yet seen any actual proof that the Carbon is what is causing the change, nor any proof that the changes are permanent.

That's kind of my point in bowing out of the thread.

I am sorry that I got so hot a few posts back.

Rick,
We have pretty well declared our positions on the other points so let's side step a bit, and discuss comparable effects and results, that either continuing as we are, or destroying the Carbon based economy that the Warmies want us to do will cause.

rrr I admit, it is a good question WHAT we should do and how much the current generation owes to all future generations while it still subject too some doubt: are we gambling our current comfort against a 5% drop in world popuklation, or a 20% drop?

Your concern, which you have mentioned several times, as well as in the above paragraph, is for the people that MAY suffer in the future.

My concern is for the hundreds of thousands of coal miners, Oil Industry employees, and all of the people that currently work in carbon based industries, that WILL be put out of work and never have a decent job again if all the desired regulations come into place.

I was personally a witness to the devastation of many hard working families that were destroyed when the Eco-nuts misguidedly destroye the Northwest Logging industry, because they were mistaken in believing the logging was destroying the Spotted Owl. Many loggers and sawmill workers were never again able to get equal jobs. It is now known that a stronger, more aggressive Sea Bird was destroying the nests of the Spotted Owls, not the loggers, so all that suffering was needless. And then, as now, EVERY EXPERTthat was involed in the movement was absolutely positive that they were right.

So now, when i hear the Warmies demanding the people that work in the Coal Mines have their jobs and livelihoods taken away, I read the articles carefully to see if any of the protestors that have safe jobs downtown are offering to share their wages and houses with the people whose jobs they are destroying.

So, instead of worrying about future poor people in far away countries many years in the future, what are your personal concerns for, and feelings about, the families that will have their lives ruined now if the Coal Mines are shut down?

Ernie



This message was edited Mar 14, 2014 7:05 PM

The problem I have is that the 90% have been incorrect in their predictions. They are using models of the past to predict the future. And the future is very hard to predict. If the climate scientists have been incorrect now why cant they be incorrect again? Most anyone who predicts the future wont get it right. In fact the climate scientists are constantly changing their predictions...its an extremely fluid science. Many of them are dumbfounded at the relative cooling we are seeing.

They also vary significantly with respect to the supposed consequences that will occur. Many do not predict the level of calamity that Rick suggests. Some of the changes would be beneficial as well.

I don't watch Fox news.

I am a scientist. And I try to make my observations based on what people say verses what I think is happening. Sure I can very much be in error because what I see where I live and what I read can be very different than what others experience. Also my life span is short. The CO2 is rising no doubt. And that is due to human activity. Time will only tell what the effects will be. Obviously there has been significant slowing down in warming and this runs contrary to the theories.

I think Ernie has a valid point about what has historically caused warming and cooling in the past and that those same factors may be affecting the changes we are seeing now. What caused those changes? There are obviously things that change climate besides atmospheric CO2 levels.

If you add gasoline to a fire...the fire gets bigger. But we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere and it isnt getting warmer. And especially not as warm as was predicted nor in proportion to the amount of CO2 added. The earth is complex...this is not a simple chemical reaction where you increase one ingredient and you favor the reaction with an end result.

Rick, because of the fluidity of climate science I just cant put much faith in it and be so convinced to the point that you are where I would make any drastic changes.

One interesting point is that despite higher CO2 levels...atmospheric O2 levels remain constant. Why and how is this possible?

I believe both Rick, Ernie, and drodarr have giiven excellent summaries I will add my own.....looking upward.

I believe that all the mighty vast universe was created for a purpose. This creation presupposes a Creator. I believe that He is watching closely...knows your every thought and even your every heartbeat. Such a One already has a plan and program for HIS creation.

I believe that according to Scripture that all spirits have been made manifested in this day and are coming to a maturity and the combine is coming. All our little plans outside of Christ will fall away. The least of our worries will be climate change when men are calling for the rocks to fall on them.

Well, perhaps you say, "You are careless and don't care about the ecology." Nonsense. I plan to be around forever Good stewardship for God's creation should be fundamental to a changed heart.

"Averaged across all drought treatments, tuber yield from plants growing under elevated carbon dioxide levels was as much as 60% greater than tuber yield from plants growing under current carbon dioxide levels."

http://www.growingproduce.com/vegetables/potatoes/potatoes-could-step-up-performance-under-climate-change-pressure/?utm_source=knowledgemarketing&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=avgenews%2002062014

I have seen study after study that increased CO2 and warmer temperatures increases food production even if under drought.

Have you ever heard a climate scientist say anything positive resulting from a warming earth? Why are their predictions like Ricks so negative. I see so many potential benefits if the earth warms. A warming earth might just be what is needed to sustain us.

I usually try to use the rule, "Follow the money". Let's say the Global Warming Thing is a hoax for someone to "make a bundle". Who would that be and how would they do it? Just as an exercise.

If the climate scientists predicted anything other than catastrophe most would be out of a job. That's what keeps the research dollars rolling in!

Pending catastrophe makes for great news stories and ratings as well.
And politicians must "keep us alarmed with a series of hobgoblins' which they will save us from, to keep us thinking we need all the politicians and government departments. (see H L Mencken, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html)

Al Gore became a multi-millionaire, writing a book and lecturing BEFORE there was even scientific evidence that there was so-called Global Warming. Of course, now none of the "experts" will use that term. Needless to say, university, governmental, and private research thrive on controversy and catastrophic predictions, just as people like Al Sharpton thrive on much the same hog-wash.

Ken

I guess I should have been more specific. Let's say it is a hoax and yet we (everyone) prepare for the "catastrophe" and there is none. Who benefits? Who loses?


Now turn the coin over and someone take the other side and say if it is not a hoax, we prepare for it and who benefits? Who loses?

Where is the big money to be gained or lost?

Drobarr,

To go along with your remarks about warmer weather producing more of a lot of crops, right now most of the surplus water is in the higher latitudes, so if the temperate zones move several degrees higher, the better growing zones will be closer to abundant water, also.

But as you say, the Warmies never mention the many benefits that will occur along with the problems.

Ernie

Global Warming has already been used as an excuse to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of Taxpayer money to "Friends of the Warmies" like Solyndra and Fiskar, and writing expensive new regulations for things like Coal fired Power Plants will drive up their costs to make more Solyndras competitve in price, opening the door to many more Solyndra type money pits to be filled with more Taxpayer dollars.

This fight over Global Warming is actually part of the War between Bigger Government and Entrepenures, and Private Enterprise and Free Markets.

Business will be the Short Term loser, but like everything else spent by both the Government and the Businesses, all fo the costs of both are eventually paid for by the ultimate consumer, AKA the Taxpayers.

Ernie

Can anyone be more specific? I hear the generalities all the time. And Ernie, did you mean to say there exists a fight between private enterprise and free markets? If so, could you explain more what you mean? Thx

Steady,
Your question is too complex for a simple answer, but there will be many more winners like the promoters of Solyndra that got over a hundred million dollars of Tax Payer money to make Solar panels, And many losers, including all Taxpayers that lost every penny of that hundred million dollars the Green Government loaned to Solyndra.


Draining money from our Economy to finance startups that are not cost competitive with Carbon based energy drives up the cost of everything for every body. A member of the Adminsitration recently testified to Congress that the proposed new regulations on Coal burning Power Plants will increase the wholesale cost of electricity by 8 to 10 times. So all people that use electrictity, or buy products that are made with electricity will be among the losers.

I apoloigize for the clumsy sentence. I will try again.,

The fight over Global Warming is actually a part of the War between people that want Bigger Government with more regulations, and the people that want smaller Government that will consume less than the 21% of our Gross Domestic Production..

A smaller government, fewer unnecssary regulations, and a simpler Tax Code, would free up a lot of Capital that could be used by Private Enterprise and the Free Market to create more jobs,and produce more products, ,both of which would produce more taxable income, and strengthen our economy, and allow us to reduce our national debt..

Government jobs do not create new wealth, but productive jobs in Private Enterprise do..

Ernie

CORRECTION TO POST ABOVE.

The Solyndra loss to taxpayers that I referenced above as being over a 100 million, understated the amount. I should have checked it as i knew i was not exact, Accordng to the Congressional Oversight committee, the loss may be as high as $849,000,000,00 [million]

And that was just the cost of one loan to one company.

And for those of us that have always had to live within our means it is particulary irksome that our Government BORROWED THE MONEY from Chiha to loan to Solyndra..

Ernie

aaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhh......
(that's my sound of being irked)

Ernie,

Very well said. In total agreement. As government has grown together with taxes and regulations this has sqeezed the middle class. Our federal income tax rates might be similar or less than what they have been historically but every good or service has these costs built in and thus are sort of hidden. The tax we pay is much more than the 6 to 8 percent sales tax.

And how are we going to pay the 16,000,000,000,000 plus we are in debt!

Drobarr,

It amazes me that so many people, most of whom are concerned about the way they spend their persoanal funds, do not show enough interest in how the Government spends the people's Tax money to take time to study and understand what happens to it.

I do not mind paying taxes, because those are only paid on the years i have made money, and not making any money is much worse than paying taxes, but i do hate to see it wasted after i have paid it.

Ernie

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5601/2173.short
Study finds that carbon release from warmed forest soil is small and mitigated by increased plant growth
"warming has the potential to indirectly stimulate enough carbon storage in plants to at least compensate for the carbon losses from soils."

Sallyg...great point!

Warm temperatures and higher C02 levels could be wonderful for plant growth! And if we have increased vegetation we will have more and more carbon removed from the air.

Sorry doom and gloomers...looks like plants are going to save the day!

If we are true plant lovers we should be finding ways to INCREASE our carbon footprint! I mean if we really love plants we need to give them lots and lots of rich pure CO2...organic CO2 for those who are organic. Those who are for smaller carbon footprints want to starve plants from the CO2 they need. Anti CO2'ers are really plant haters in disguise and this is just a whole conspiracy to starve and mistreat plants. How can denying what plants need be considered sustainable and environmentally friendly? Perhaps we need an organization...People for the ethical treatment of plants (PETP)that can lobby for and ensure plants obtain the atmospheric CO2 they are entitled too.

So I guess that makes Al Gore anti-plant...I knew there was something creepy about that guy. On second thought...with his big mansions and private jet maybe he is on the side of plants afterall.

John,

You may be right about the profligate portion of the population. I have met some of those folks, too.

Ernie

.