Everything comes down to the data, and how it is interpreted. CO2 has been pegged as a gas that will cause positive-feedback runaway global warming, and every model has CO2 as the villain. The data we have does not backup this model either! So the very basis of these computer models need a lot more scrutiny.

Then again, who's going to be able to build a climate model that will be able to account for cloud formations and increased/reduced solar activity? Which I still believe has way more affect than CO2 does on the global temperature.

Quite Anecdotal to me. The Antarctic has 90% of the earth's ice anyway. The eastern half of Antarctica is 4x the size of the western half, and is cooling/growing.

It seems climate fear mongers only want to point to both the Arctic and the western Antarctic, where the west is somewhat unstable at the moment. They never seem to take into account the growing ice sheet on the eastern Antarctic, and the fact that it offsets other ice losses. I'm sure in another 30 years that part of the Antarctic may be decreasing, while another large area of ice is forming somewhere else. Normal cycles, should not be made into an international crisis.

Could be the 2nd most insightful post I've seen today... That's kind of sad actually.

UGH. Seriously, put the kool-aide away for a bit and look at the numbers. I know you have all these big happy dreams of flying magical unicorns that will exist when we stop burning fossil fuels, but that's not what we're seeing.

Quite literally, we're enhancing our crop yields by burning fossil fuels. It's a minute increase in CO2, and I do mean very small. When compared with all greenhouse gases, it's not even background noise. Increased CO2 = Bigger, better, healthier plant life. Which will equate to more available food for the human population.

Fossil fuels do not add to the green house gases in the atmosphere in amounts that we can even measure. By their own accords, those who want to see greenhouse gases curtailed, are only talking about 1/20th of a degree in terms of climate change. That number is probably being generous.

The numbers supporting a huge campaign to combat global climate change just simply do not add up. I hate this issue, because so many people do not look at the numbers, and believe the FUD that we've been taught since we were children. I too believed all of it, up until a couple of years ago. I took a good long look at the numbers, what was being said. Low and behold, I made my own decision, and every time I hear combating carbon emissions, well let's just say whoever said it goes down a few levels on my credibility meter.

Jobs lost are a cost to society. A huge cost in fact, and if enough jobs are lost, you will make less in tax dollars, which will throw your cost models out the window anyway. Taking jobs that produce things we want and or need, to replace them with jobs that are chosen by the government simply ends in economic collapse as the market will always win. I know Pelosi already is chanting "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" and I agree with those 4 words, however I oppose the cap and trade for that very reason. [jobs created by government is not a net gain in jobs, just results in less money in the private sector].

While everyone would agree they are just guessing the numbers for the costs, the climate side is just as much of a guess. If anything it really does look just like fluctuating noise. Many have pointed out potential problems with the model for global warming, not even attacking the model, but where and when the measurements are taken! Urban centers get hotter and retain more heat then rural areas. There's just no accounting for all the sources of error, no matter what your model. Even if we are getting slightly warmer, it's been pointed out, there's a net benefit for humanity because of it.

The world we live in is based on economics. If you wanted to make widget X, and it cost your $35 to make it in the US, and $14 to make it in oh let's say China, where will you make the most profit on widget X? That means that there will be workers employed in China to make widget X, while unemployment will continue to be a problem in the US. Your belief in CBO numbers and happy flying unicorns actually figuring out the actual cost is way off basis. Yes, the DOLLAR amount will be an actual number, and perhaps they'll get close. We can say yes we spent this amount on cap and trade, and it was a good deal, we came in under budget. However, we are in a global economy, we have to compete to earn money. There are costs involved when you destroy jobs that drive our economy.

This one made me smile. When you turn your lights off when you leave the room... please, won't you think of the poor carnations you may be hurting? ;-)

YES

More than likely not, but I can't prove it one way or another.

I think they're a pretty good idea! (Please note, I'm the guy advocating more CO2 in the atmosphere, as opposed to less) Just don't subsidize them and let them compete on the market. For some people they make sense, for others they won't. Just don't force them on people and we'll get along fine! (there also maybe a breakthrough in energy density which will make them more competitive eventually)

An interesting statement, but I don't believe he is actually a war criminal. I seem to have more disdain for Cheney who seems like he was running the show more than golfer/vacationer Bush. That being said however, the unfortunate torture events will set us (The USA) back far from the high place some people had held for us in terms of the US following it's own laws and the Geneva convention, and provide lots of ammo that foreign regimes can use to incite their people against us. Still, not a war criminal.

While I will admit the difference between Obama and Bush is about the same as Pepsi and Coke... The real reason for his sudden want to keep Guantanamo Bay is the very elaborate judicial system that was set up down there. I didn't agree with it first either, however there is no where good to put these people, and their trials, at least some of the trials, simply MUST remain secret, unless we want to recall all of our spys/intelligence resources who will be outed during the trial. It's not a good situation, but still , Obama is not turning a blind eye to war crimes. Obama is just accepting reality. As far as transparency in gov't... They are making efforts, and I think they're trying to follow through on their campaign promises by posting vast numbers of documents in one location [at least that was the last plan i heard] to make it easier to access what the government is doing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for Obama/Bush, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, and ended up tossing my vote to the constitutional party, with about 100,000 other people. I do believe that we have already forsaken the next generation with our spending, and the debt that will have to be paid back. The bailouts were a miserable mistake, the auto bailout I believe will never work, and at the very best, will simply soften up those auto companies that are still standing. We are chasing out investors, and business [even evil Microsoft will expand overseas, and not here if we keep going] faster than we can tax those that are here. It's becoming a sad state of affairs, and the cap and trade, if I had to pick one bill that will finally push the US out of world power status, would be it. Say goodbye to manufacturing [and it's jobs] and say hello to increased costs of living [as if they aren't high enough]. If anyone has a list of countries to move to, I'm open to hearing them.

... You actually believe the CBO numbers? and no, cap and trade has some very nasty unintended costs that MIT likely 'missed'. Quite honestly we don't know how high the cap and trade cost will go. The useful to society jobs that we will destroy... to create these windfarm jobs to create power at 12% efficiency [pulling that number out of no where, but I heard it was a sadly low number when you factor in all the time the turbines are not spinning, and you have to utilize natural gas sources, because they can turn on and off faster than most plants, despite their more costly fuel.] What still has me sputtering is

Just the lunacy of focusing on CO2. There have been studies on plants, and they are practically STARVING for more CO2. If anything we should be looking for more ways to get MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, no I'm serious! Apparently the yield increases in plants may have had something to do with the slight increase in CO2 we have managed over the past 100 years. Colorado University agrees with me on this anyway.

So if we cut CO2 levels we might not be able to squeeze as much yield out of our fields as we are currently doing. Well it's a good thing we're moving to more ethanol bases products. Oh wait, hold on a second...

I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll). I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources. Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree? (over the course of decades) I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap). However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe. Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will. Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so. Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.

I know, how about all intelectual property is now public domain, until the company that owns it can prove it does own it in a special copyright court. Cases heard per year: 57 :) Waiting period: 621 years. Alright I'll stop being clinical about it. The loop where business takes off because of extra-ordinary protections via copyright law, said business donates to politicians to increase the viability of their business model needs to stop. Not because the business is viable, but because the business becomes successful at the expense of public domain.

You bring up some interesting points. Really any system would have to be unbelievably simple to correctly change how we handle copyright. The example I gave before was obviously a bit oversimplfied. The actual numbers that would be most effective would have to be researched. Perhaps a free period of 2 years could be included for all works. It might actually create an interesting market, when a work about to hit the next copyright cost 'tier' the artist or creative person would likely be looking for a buyer. If it's not worth it like I said though, it goes back out for the rest of us. If it is worth it, copyright is maintained, we provide unusual protections for the works; however there is a trade there as the works themselves help pay for these unusual protections. Personally, getting rid of copyright entirely might be preferable, but I'm just trying to come up with practical, workable solutions that are not the run-away Mickey Mouse laws we have now. [Disney will still pay to keep Mickey Mouse, which is part of the reason copyright has become such a large number of years before falling into public domain].

Copyright law does drive me nuts. I still remember, my scanner broke, I was tasked with just making simple copies of a collage of items on a piece of paper. One item included a photo of my brother who was going to graduate high school. Anyway, long story short, the person would not let me make copies of the collage, because she claimed the photograph was taken professionally, and it was protected by copyright. Obviously since this was just for a graduation party invitation, and was mostly other items, it should count as fair use. However Walgreens didn't seem to care that I thought it was fair use. A trip to Kinko's later and I got it done. [had to drive 30 miles since I'm in a fairly small down]. Regardless, copyright has become a 10 headed monster that's running out of control, and there is no end in sight.

My complaint is we are spending TAX DOLLARS on something that is not an issue. We are indoctrinating children into believing that greenhouse gases causes global warming... errr wait, we updated those textbooks to say climate change now. Either way, what I'm saying is that I don't care if you waste your time, your money, your efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but don't involve public money in it. My complaint is the vast sums of money we are sinking into our 'green' ambitions. Not only that, but we're discouraging the most cost effective sources of energy [or at least we're about to with the cap and trade bogus law] which takes money from successful utility companies who have generated energy reliably for us, and gives it to these green wind farms which will have to built elaborate wires to transmit large amounts of energy long distances to where it's needed. I have many many many complaints regarding global warming and greenhouse gases, most of which come down to wasted money, and bad policies.
Cap and trade, United States fiscal policy, "Man made greenhouse gasses", energy subsidies, international treaties. Pick a topic, I could go all day.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png and of the greenhouse gases... http://theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif [decidedly biases source... but you get the idea] Either way, I'm tired of all this global warming... nonsensical, non-scientific, love-fest. Greenhouse gases are not an issue. At least not one we can control beyond the .035% of .03%. Either way, the amount of influence we have on greenhouse gases is likely within the margin of error for test equipment anyway! Lets worry about particulate matter, smog, or at least something that is actual a problem we experience. I feel a little sick whenever I think about how much money has been spent on 'global warming' that could have been spent on so many other environmental pursuits that would actually benefit us. I guess I'll see if Al Gore has modpoints or not today!

Hell I'd go out of my way to protect everything and anything if there was a reasonable time before it fell into public domain. I keep thinking about this issue a lot, I think the solution needs to involve the copyright owner paying in money, very very small sums for the first few years, but leading to much larger sums as time moves forward. Hopefully until they opt to just let it fall into public domain because they have already made a profit on their works. (Anyone else sick of the current Mickey Mouse copyright laws we have now?)

Anyway, maybe something like years 1-4 $100 years 5-8 $1000 years 8-10 $40000 then we could just say something 1 million per year for every year there after. So either way, the work will benefit the general public (as was the original intention of copyright law). If the work is so wildly successful it will raise money. If the work isn't that great, it gets put into public domain sooner, so it can be built upon. Anyway, maybe I'm crazy, I don't like to see this kind of over-regulation of thought anyway. However if we WERE going to provide the protections that copyright holders want, I would greatly prefer a system based on this.

Get used to it. We have a Gov't now that will look for any loose scrap of spare change, and will be will to shake you by the ankles to find it. I find it relatively despicable, but not in any way surprising. Maybe if the Gov't took more of an interest in not impeding the trade of goods and services to the degree it does, high taxes, over-regulation [literally picking winners and losers, and running companies themselves at this point] that maybe, just maybe the recession we're in wouldn't be nearly as bad. That maybe we'd have a market where I can find work that actually relates to my 2 year degree, instead of just picking up the 'anything that is available' kind of work that I am doing now.

I'm not laying this on Obama in any way. We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now. Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so. I just find it interesting that they're going after things that are quite small, and will end up investing likely more resources than they get out of it.