[...] Find More Informations here: bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2009/06/01/the-breath-tax/ [...]…

[...] Read More: bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2009/06/01/the-breath-tax/ [...]…

First, you criticize computer models for only predicting (not proving) that climate change is caused by man. That is how science works. Scientists use words such as "likely" and "probably" because current theories are based on current understanding. New information is always coming in.

Next, you bring up the research of Ferenc Miskolczi. He does have impressive credentials, but so do many people on both sides of the debate. Ultimately, it's the work that matters. And Miskolczi's theories just don't stand up to any sort of rigorous scrutiny. There are serious mistakes with his application of Kirchhoff's Law (an equation well over 80 years old, btw) and several other assumptions he makes in his arguments. Don't take my word, though. Spend some time looking into it on your own. His work just doesn't hold up.

You also mention the work of the University of Wisconsin regarding African dust and temperatures in the North Atlantic. This work does nothing to call into question AGW as you'll see from this University of Wisconsin article on the paper: http://www.news.wisc.edu/16472 From the article: "The result suggests that only about 30 percent of the observed Atlantic temperature increases are due to other factors, such as a warming climate. While not discounting the importance of global warming, Evan says this adjustment brings the estimate of global warming impact on Atlantic more into line with the smaller degree of ocean warming seen elsewhere, such as the Pacific.
"This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast," he says."

So, while I agree that Waxman-Markey is crap, so, unfortunately, is your analysis of the science behind global warming. IMO, one way to avoid ridiculous legislation like this is to restore respect for the science behind this issue so that any actions taken to help rectify the situation make sense both economically and scientifically. It'll be much harder to score points politically if the public is able to look beyond rhetoric to see whether the actions being suggested will actually be of any benefit.

Thanks.

Calvin

First, you criticize computer models for only predicting (not proving) that climate change is caused by man. That is how science works. Scientists use words such as "likely" and "probably" because current theories are based on current understanding. New information is always coming in.

Next, you bring up the research of Ferenc Miskolczi. He does have impressive credentials, but so do many people on both sides of the debate. Ultimately, it's the work that matters. And Miskolczi's theories just don't stand up to any sort of rigorous scrutiny. There are serious mistakes with his application of Kirchhoff's Law (an equation well over 80 years old, btw) and several other assumptions he makes in his arguments. Don't take my word, though. Spend some time looking into it on your own. His work just doesn't hold up.

You also mention the work of the University of Wisconsin regarding African dust and temperatures in the North Atlantic. This work does nothing to call into question AGW as you'll see from this University of Wisconsin article on the paper: http://www.news.wisc.edu/16472 From the article: "The result suggests that only about 30 percent of the observed Atlantic temperature increases are due to other factors, such as a warming climate. While not discounting the importance of global warming, Evan says this adjustment brings the estimate of global warming impact on Atlantic more into line with the smaller degree of ocean warming seen elsewhere, such as the Pacific.
"This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast," he says."

So, while I agree that Waxman-Markey is crap, so, unfortunately, is your analysis of the science behind global warming. IMO, one way to avoid ridiculous legislation like this is to restore respect for the science behind this issue so that any actions taken to help rectify the situation make sense both economically and scientifically. It'll be much harder to score points politically if the public is able to look beyond rhetoric to see whether the actions being suggested will actually be of any benefit.

Thanks.

Calvin

Kevin S