I understand your philosophy, which can be summed up as “we don’t know, but aren’t we helping the planet and humanity by these measures?” The answer is no, we are not. Policies to reduce globabl warming are often at odds with those that actually reduce pollution.

For example, Compact flourescents are horrible. They carry mercury sufficient mercury that if broken, will literally turn your closet into a superfund site.

Second, wind and solar power have massive land-use and resource-use problems and wind causes massive noise pollution. Their energy production is very small in comparison to their environmental impact. In comparison, a modern, efficient coal plant produces only CO2 when working properly. If CO2 is not a problem, then the environmental impact of a coal plant is significantly less than wind power (definition: irony).

Third, several environmentalists have suggested turning off pollution control equipment to reduce planetary temperatures. Specifically, they want to increase sulfur emissions (white smoke). This will mildly increase the albedo of the planet to cause a miniscule amount of cooling. However, it will drastically increase acid rain.

Fourthly, these suggested massive restrictions on energy use will harm the poorest of the poor most. Increasing fuel price litterally takes food out of the mouths of the poor who have to choose between freezing and starving on a daily basis. Should we increase costs so much that we push more people to rely on charity for basic necessities?

This comment “Hollywood has done more to spread Anti-Americanism and make it socially acceptable, than most non-American America-haters.” says it all. The irony of it all is that “we the people” pay to make these left wing know it all’s wealthy. I hate irony.

From the experts….

[b]Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007 that “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.”

From the media….

[b]When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn’t “politically correct,” Anne Peterson, the agency’s assistant administrator for global health, replied that “I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT … So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy.”[/b]

From the countries….

[b]It has also been argued that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique “was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT.”[105] Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), asserts that “many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID].” [/b]

Gotta love people who want to do something to feel better about their empty lives, no matter who has to pay.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

data type – Mean Temp
period – Annual
first yr- 1940
last yr- 1980
Submit

Now in the 70’s, weren’t they pushing the idea of another ice age?

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Now try
first yr- 1895
last yr- 1940

I guess there must have been a lot of emissions back then.

And now we’re gonna burn they say.

Temps go up and down. Man made warming is BS.

I love my carbon footprint.

But that’s besides the point of the film. The Day the Earth Stood Still is an example of the idiocy that surrounds the global warming hysterics.

Humans will not and cannot cause the planet to “die”, and there is absolutely no reason for an alien intelligence to screw with human development to save the pandas. A single supervolcano eruption (which is coming, one way or another) will in one day have a greater impact on this planet’s climate than all of human activity throughout history. A large meteor strike (also inevitable) will be even worse. Don’t see Keanu giving two ****s about that, huh?

I am all for individuals exercising their personal rights and choosing to support with their wallets or time causes that I may not agree with. That is part of what makes America a special place. If someone wants to lesson their carbon footprint because they think it helps, be my guest. The company I work for got rid of their annual 24 page calendar for a foldout calendar that puts six months on each side and printed it on recycled paper that smells like trash. They used all the typical environmental buzzwords justifying the change. I don’t like it, but it is a private company and they can do what they want for whatever reason they choose. It is when people advocate using the government to enforce those beliefs that I have an issue with. As we all know, once the government becomes involved, you will never get them out. And along with government intervention come unintended consequences that are almost as bad or worse than the initial problem. As an example we can look to forestry policy. The government stepped in and crafted policy changing the use of old growth forests. While the policies had the intended effect of saving some old growth trees it had the unintended effect of creating more and longer lasting forest fires because these set aside areas cannot be cleared of the dead trees and other dry underbrush and this material creates a greater likelihood that a lightning strike will start a fire or once a fire starts this material provides more fuel to keep it going than it would otherwise have.

Not to mention how the vague language of whatever is passed would be manipulated to serve ends that they were never intended for. There are examples in every major piece of environmental legislation that Congress has passed (Endangered Speices Act, Clean Air Act, etc.)

Whatever large scale “solution” the advocates come up with will have greater and longer lasting consequences than intended.

This is a topic that needs careful long term study, not celeb-scientists shouting down their opposition that they are wrong and we need action now.

One final thought? Why do the biggest supporters of AGW refuse to debate and descend into adhomenim attacks anyone who disagrees with their belief?

That’s what I love about you liberals, you call billions in tax dollars spent and trillions in lost GDP which could mean a million lost jobs and you call that a “little inconvenience”. Wow!!

And you know who it will hurt the worst? The poor. The people at the bottom of the heap for whom the liberals are supposedly the champions, are the first to be hurt by rising energy costs, by carbon taxes, by EPA fines, by trade barriers and all kind of other crazy liberal economic and environmental policies.

Now if you are planning on helping the poor in China or India, knock yourself out because that’s were all the manufacturing jobs and any other carbon intensive industry will move to.

We have little idea if the effects will be positive or negative, but they may well be lost in the background noise of the multiple cycles of natural climate change we know exist.

We should not spend astronomical sums and hinder economic growth now to prevent something the amelioration of which will just cost a small part of our GDP in 2080.

We cannot stop it anyway. The European Union or Al Gore talk a good game, but they have not reduced their “carbon footprint” – how dare they expect the rest of the world to commit economic suicide? Isn´t it immoral to make such demands when a billion human beings still live in absolute poverty? For them, “environment” means no clean water and cooking over a dried dung fire, not invented horror stories about polar bears, lead or passive smoking. For them, growth and wealth creation is the solution. I know many greens do not care about brown or yellow people (they consider them overpopulation) but the brown and yellow people will not ask for their permission to try and climb out of poverty.

http://ConservativeAmerican.org