In the San Francisco Bay area there is a loosely knit group of city governments called A.B.A.G., the Association of Bay Area Governments. It's purpose, in reality, is to inform each other of policies that grant the local governments more control, more income, and for one to try out experimental government policies for the others to watch and learn from. Gun control laws and regulations are but one of the areas they "study".

Each government worldwide is observing how the others are doing with regulations and laws empowering said governments via Global Warming; each bootstrapping upon the other as these policies are put into place to general either power or income, or both.

It's not secret, for the most part, it's being done right out in the open.

Wow.

Well, I hope they stay in the "B.A.G." with all that surplus merlot from this year's crop. And all this time I thought they were comparing notes to introduce efficiencies into their local systems for the benefit of taxpayers.

Nope, none ever did that. It's just one of the reasons I've come to the conclusion that government(s) should be denied the use of computers completely.

Do you really want efficient government? No, you do not.

Actually, Pat, I do.

Just to bump this thread up again, I recently saw a reference on the news to an upcoming "mini-ice age". I wasn't able to watch it, but a quick Wikipedia search -- seconded by a National Geographic piece of a couple of years ago, suggest that as a result of the "global warming", that Europe will cool and glaciers in at least the Northern Hemisphere will expand.

The image of glaciers growing and Europe freezing will hardly play well to the "Inconvenient Truth" crowd.

Sounds like no matter how cold it gets, it will still be called global warming.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stated that she looks to laws around the world for her opinions on the court. If that isn't the most incredible thing I've ever heard, I don't know. Why would a Supreme court Justice be looking at world law to determine if something is allowed under the US Constitution?

Yup. and man (the US) will still be blamed for global warming . .. which of course will be much MUCH worse once any "mini Ice-age" is over. :rolleyes:

Justice Kennedy has stated the same thing, in fact at length.

I just had to bump this early 2007 thread to point to the IPCC claim, back then, which was repeated just a couple days ago as NEW, higher certainty of 95%. (...wait, what? Deja vu)

Of course, today, the IPCC have backed away from CO2 as the sole problem, and have broadened the blame to the less specific "human activity."

Oh, and please pay no attention to just how WRONG their predictions have been. Because NOW they are 95% certain.... :D

they don't - they look at other opinions to see how they balance different competing interests, make analyses, etc.

and the USSC does things besides interpret the Constitution - they also interpet treaties with other countries

In the end it always seems to come down to politics.

my greatest fear is: what if we're wrong? what if humans really do contribute to climate change and by the time we realize it, its too late?

seems imprudent to dump crap into the oceans, seems imprudent to continue to dump pollution from coal fired generation plants into the air, seems imprudent to sit in your car in your garage with the doors closed. Might this all just be the wrong thing to do?

Its not hard to imagine a clean environment, clean air, and renewable energy. Why wouldn't we do the right things? :confused:

td

I'm glad that intelligent, analytical thought process hasn't been bought off on the individual level yet .. because politicized science is most certainly the norm today.

How much are you willing to give up for something that MIGHT have a trace of validity?
400% increase in electricity bills? 1000% increase?
500% increase in natural gas cost?
$10/gallon gasoline?
No cars at all, less personal freedom?
Regulated travel by permit?
rationed electricity, black-outs, regulated useage that cannot be exceeded?
A significantly lower standard of living with many things we now take for granted becoming unaffordable?


Seriously, how much if that are YOU willing to accept and how much are you willing to give up?
Is ALL of that worth gambling on something that very well may be a great big SCAM? A carefully designed political and social experiment designed to alter and control behavior and attitudes?

Take your emotional response out of it, do some research, and use your logic to analyse and see what's really going on before you giving in to the brainwashing.
Being a lemming isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I'm just hoping the oil runs out soon. Or gets too hard to extract. That's the only thing that will stop people pumping the carbon that took millions of years to sequester back into the atmosphere in a matter of hundreds.

Not at all.

We have many centuries of COAL left to burn. Coal will take over when the oil runs out. My high school science teacher promised us all the the oil would be gone by 2000. The reserves just keep getting bigger.

Of course that same teacher said the future would be the paperless office with computers keeping records.

I am still waiting for my flying car and a practical jet pack.

Yeah, and don't piss into the wind. Pretty basic stuff. but it gets absurd if some said 'you are not allowed to piss (because pissing into the wind has bad consequences). ...as do bad analogies. Anyway....

Here's the thing. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is the basic building block of all plant life. It is molecularly heavier than N₂ and O₂ (Air) - which is good because plants are on the ground and in the water. And, plants have a tough enough time getting it (except in 'grow' operations, where CO₂ is pumped in to speed growth). That is, our air, at the surface has only 0.04 percent CO₂. By contrast, we humans get 20 percent O₂ to breath.

In the decades past CO₂ was propped-up as the boogieman evil by-product of man; so it could be sin-taxed. (pay no attention to CO₂ production of bugs and actual big CO₂ contributors)

To claim that the production of CO₂ is equivalent to crapping were you live is simply wrong. CO₂ is not a pollutant. (contrary to our taxing and cntrol authorities)

Not only is the CO₂ correlation to warming (which has been the push for decades) NOT found/established, the causality is even further away. (this is a complex system - NOT some physics theory using massless ropes and frictionless pulleys. As evidenced by the many WRONG climate models.)

FWIW, here is a digestible view of the temps and the 'expert' supercomputer models.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1380332839.jpg

Per Climate Models vs. Observations: Picture Worth a Thousand Words (www.globalwarming.org)

Keep in mind that CO2 levels have not been slowing down.

Which favor of that kool-aide is your favorite? You must drink a lot of it.

You drive a car. Right?
If you were serious in that post then that makes you the biggest hypocrite around.

I drive a car and believe that it no real effect on the environment at all, no conflict.
You drive a car thinking that you are poisoning the world, but you do it anyway.
Oh the shame.

You aren't one of those people who think that EVERYONE ELSE has to do without but you don't, are you?