On 05/13/2011 10:03 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 2:59 am, John wrote:

Once to 297 PPM 300,000 years ago. Still nowhere near what we have today.

ROFLOL!

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

We are at the lowest PPM of Co2 we have ever been at, a couple of
hundred PPM +/- is virtually insignificant!

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your understanding of science is amazing. Not.

I got a good laugh off the chart. Smith, large mammals have only
flourished recently. You put up a chart for the Paleozoic an Mesozoic.
Tell me what was alive back then.

On 5/13/2011 6:05 PM, dave wrote:
On 05/13/2011 10:01 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 6:17 am, wrote:
On 05/12/2011 09:40 PM, wrote:

On May 12, 6:11 pm, wrote:

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al Gore smokes pot ? That is new to me .

I would assume that he does. Most boomers smoke pot, don't they?

I never touched the stuff.

50% +1 = Most

klinton did, but he didn't inhale ... that was the first time he told us
the truth.

ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

On 5/13/2011 2:59 AM, John Smith wrote:

2~3 Peaks as High or Higher.

Once to 297 PPM 300,000 years ago. Still nowhere near what we have today.

ROFLOL!

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

We are at the lowest PPM of Co2 we have ever been at, a couple of
hundred PPM +/- is virtually insignificant!

Regards,
JS

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is not
going to kill us or mankind. Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve as
food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china), at
this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no meaningful
data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the earth, or
not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.

But then, it simply doesn't matter as far as the carbon tax goes.
Paying taxes to the government has nothing to do with Co2 levels in the
atmosphere. Indeed, if the example serves as any sort of predictor, the
higher the taxes, the higher the Co2. ROFLOL

A real non-event ... we simply need to deal with the changes which the
future brings ... this has always been true, this will always be true ...

Get a grip! Ohhh, look over there, it is a terrorist under the rock ...
scream fool, SCREAM! :-)

Regards,
JS

On May 12, 7:47*pm, dave wrote:
The New York Times
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only.

May 12, 2011
Report Stresses Urgency of Action on Climate
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

The nation’s scientific establishment issued a stark warning to the
American public on Thursday: Not only is global warming real, but the
effects are already becoming serious and the need has become “pressing”
for a strong national policy to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases.

The report, by the National Research Council, an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, did not endorse any specific legislative approach,
but it did say that attaching some kind of price to emissions of carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, would ideally be an essential
component of any plan.

“The risks associated with doing business as usual are a much greater
concern than the risks associated with engaging in ambitious but
measured response efforts,” the report concludes. “This is because many
aspects of an ‘overly ambitious’ policy response could be reversed or
otherwise addressed, if needed, through subsequent policy change,
whereas adverse changes in the climate system are much more difficult
(indeed, on the time scale of our lifetimes, may be impossible) to ‘undo.’ ”

The report, “America’s Climate Choices,” was ordered by Congress several
years ago to offer “action-oriented advice” on how the nation should be
reacting to the potential consequences of climate change.

But the answer comes at a time when efforts to adopt a climate-change
policy have stalled in Washington, with many of the Republicans who
control the House expressing open skepticism about the science of
climate change. Other legislators, including some Democrats, worry that
any new law would translate into higher energy prices and hurt the economy.

Not only is the science behind the climate-change forecast solid, the
report found, but the risks to future generations from further inaction
are profound. Already, the report noted, sea level is rising in many
American towns and the average United States air temperature has
increased by two degrees in the last 50 years.

The report’s authors — an unusual combination of climate scientists,
businessmen and politicians — said they were very aware that the
political mood on climate change had changed significantly from when the
committee was formed in 2009. Because the report was also about policy
advice, the council named nonscientists, including Jim Geringer, a
conservative Republican and a former governor of Wyoming.

Albert Carnesale, the chairman of the panel and a chancellor emeritus of
the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he hoped the
panel’s diversity and that many came to the job without “prior bias”
would help sell it even to skeptical policy makers.

“It is an urgent problem to turn to, and what we’ve done differently is
to look at this as a risk management problem,” Dr. Carnesale said.

While no one knows the exact shape of the risks, Dr. Carnesale said, we
know that they are real enough to act on. And that they will be harder
to act on as time passes. “We don’t know exactly when the tsunami will
hit or how high it will be, but we know it is coming, and we should
prepare,” Dr. Carnesale said.

But Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, who has been
leading the charge against further regulating carbon emissions, swiftly
dismissed the council’s findings in an interview Thursday. “I see
nothing substantive in this report that adds to the knowledge base
necessary to make an informed decision about what steps — if any —
should be taken to address climate change,” Mr. Barton said.

Although the report characterizes climate change as a problem that
urgently needs attention, it stops short of making highly specific
policy prescriptions, leaving that to lawmakers.

To many worried about climate change, that is a common flaw of such reports.

“This is the classic problem — the divide between scientific reality and
political courage,” said Paul W. Bledsoe, a senior adviser with the
Bipartisan Policy Center who has worked in Congress and with the White
House on these issues. “The scientific organizations are reluctant to
advocate detailed policy prescriptions, while political actors are
tentative about the scientific realities.”

The report outlined four areas that demanded immediate action by the
federal government.

For starters, it emphasized that reducing carbon emissions was critical
to keeping the United States from having to make dire choices in the
future. While stopping just short of recommending a carbon tax, the
committee did praise its efficacy.

“Analyses suggest that the best way to amplify and accelerate such
efforts, and to minimize overall costs (for any given national emissions
reduction target), is with a comprehensive, nationally uniform,
increasing price on” carbon emissions enough to “drive major investments
in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies,” the report said.

It also called on the federal government to play a much more active role
in researching new technologies and in helping the nation adapt to the
changes in the natural world that are already inevitable. Even with a
reduction in carbon output, the report said, some climate change will
continue to occur.

It noted that while many of the nations’ cities and states are taking
steps toward mitigating carbon output and preparing for hotter, wetter
conditions, it suggested that the federal government could help
coordinate these activities while also encouraging more research and
development.

“The federal government,” the report said, “should immediately undertake
the development of a national adaptation strategy and build durable
institutions to implement that strategy and improve it over time.”
Finally, while this report was designed, in contrast to the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be by Americans
for Americans, the authors noted that climate change was a global
problem and the nation had an obligation to remain engaged with the
international community on possible solutions.

More in Environment (2 of 49 articles)
House Approves a Bill to Spur Oil Exploration

Read More »

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-

-hint- Dave : Someone who smokes so-called
Medical-Marijuana : An Admitted Hydro-Carbon
Polluter Has NO Credibility Taking About the
Topic of "Global Warming" {a disproven theory}

joe wrote:

John Smith wrote:

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is not
going to kill us or mankind.

It may not 'kill us', but what effects may it have? If an increase on
CO2 causes a temperature rise that results in flooding major population
areas would that be a problem to be worried about?

Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve as
food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

If a climate change reduces the ability to grow those plants (rice,
wheat, corn, etc.) that are a major food source, would that be a problem
to worry about?

If the climate changes so that major agricultural areas can no longer
produce the crops needed by civilization, would that be an issue to be
worried about?


Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china), at
this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no meaningful
data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the earth, or
not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.


There is also no evidence to say the civilization can prosper if there
is significant climate change.

So while you can say CO2 was much higher in the past, you choose to
ignore the possibility that higher CO2 levels may cause problems that
could be serious.

You should be able to find instances where folks thought adding small
amounts of chemicals to the air or water was thought to be insignificant
but later had to be dealt with at a major expense.

I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than have my head in the
sand and find out the implications were much more serious.

OK, so let us say we err on the side of caution. Thing is, the
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist plan with regards to all of this seems to
be taxing the crap out of us.

Spend, spend, spend and tax tax tax.

John Smith wrote:

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is not
going to kill us or mankind.

It may not 'kill us', but what effects may it have? If an increase on
CO2 causes a temperature rise that results in flooding major population
areas would that be a problem to be worried about?


Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve as
food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

If a climate change reduces the ability to grow those plants (rice,
wheat, corn, etc.) that are a major food source, would that be a problem
to worry about?

If the climate changes so that major agricultural areas can no longer
produce the crops needed by civilization, would that be an issue to be
worried about?


Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china), at
this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no meaningful
data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the earth, or
not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.


There is also no evidence to say the civilization can prosper if there
is significant climate change.

So while you can say CO2 was much higher in the past, you choose to
ignore the possibility that higher CO2 levels may cause problems that
could be serious.

You should be able to find instances where folks thought adding small
amounts of chemicals to the air or water was thought to be insignificant
but later had to be dealt with at a major expense.

I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than have my head in the
sand and find out the implications were much more serious.

On 5/14/2011 8:58 AM, dxAce wrote:

OK, so let us say we err on the side of caution. Thing is, the
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist plan with regards to all of this seems to
be taxing the crap out of us.

How convenient of you to overlook the fact that your REPUBLICAN governor
is personally taxing YOU (your pension). To add insult to injury, he is
giving your pension tax as a -gift- to BUSINESS.

Finally, don't overlook that your guv *lied*; he said the whole point
was to whittle down the deficit -- and not one nickel of your pension
tax is going against the deficit, it's ALL going towards Business.

Feel cheated? Feel lied to? Don't want your pension taxed? Then feel
free to sign the recall petition.

On 5/14/2011 6:02 AM, joe wrote:
John Smith wrote:

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is
not going to kill us or mankind.

It may not 'kill us', but what effects may it have? If an increase on
CO2 causes a temperature rise that results in flooding major population
areas would that be a problem to be worried about?


Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve
as food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

If a climate change reduces the ability to grow those plants (rice,
wheat, corn, etc.) that are a major food source, would that be a problem
to worry about?

If the climate changes so that major agricultural areas can no longer
produce the crops needed by civilization, would that be an issue to be
worried about?


Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china),
at this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no
meaningful data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the
earth, or not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.


There is also no evidence to say the civilization can prosper if there
is significant climate change.

So while you can say CO2 was much higher in the past, you choose to
ignore the possibility that higher CO2 levels may cause problems that
could be serious.

You should be able to find instances where folks thought adding small
amounts of chemicals to the air or water was thought to be insignificant
but later had to be dealt with at a major expense.

I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than have my head in the
sand and find out the implications were much more serious.

Error-ing on the side of caution is just another way to say you wish to
indulge your unfounded fears, you wish to force your personal opinions
on others. You would pay taxes based on rumors.

Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES! And, repeal the BS ones on the books now!

A flat tax or no tax at all ...

Regards,
JS

On May 14, 9:12*am, dave wrote:
On 05/14/2011 07:55 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:









On 5/14/2011 8:58 AM, dxAce wrote:

OK, so let us say we err on the side of caution. Thing is, the
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist plan with regards to all of this
seems to
be taxing the crap out of us.

How convenient of you to overlook the fact that your REPUBLICAN governor
is personally taxing YOU (your pension). To add insult to injury, he is
giving your pension tax as a -gift- to BUSINESS.

Finally, don't overlook that your guv *lied*; he said the whole point
was to whittle down the deficit -- and not one nickel of your pension
tax is going against the deficit, it's ALL going towards Business.

Feel cheated? Feel lied to? Don't want your pension taxed? Then feel
free to sign the recall petition.

- **** your pension.

Dave : First Do Unto Yourself : As You Would Do Unto Others !

- The atmosphere is changing because of us.

Dave,
Localized around Population Areas indeed it may be
-however- On A Global Scale There Is Real "Climate
Change" and Mankind Has Little To Do With That [.]
-and-that's-a-fact- -and-that's-a-fact- -and-that's-a-fact-

Critical 'Climate Change' Factor # 1 = The Sun

On May 14, 9:07*am, dave wrote:
On 05/13/2011 08:13 PM, RHF wrote:







On May 13, 6:17 am, *wrote:
On 05/12/2011 09:40 PM, wrote:

On May 12, 6:11 pm, * *wrote:

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al Gore smokes pot ? That is new to me .

- I would assume that he does.
- Most boomers smoke pot, don't they?

Dave 'you' ASS+U+ME !
-wrong- -wrong- -wrong-
* .
-wrt- Boomers :
Some where 3-out-of-4 have tried/used Alcohol
and still less than Half have tried/used 'Pot' [MJ]
-now-those-numbers-changes-for-gen-x-
* .
Even the Obama-Regime has moved on to the
Topic of simple Climate Change and tossed out
the Excessive Claims of the "Global Warming"
Hysteria Mongers like the Fal$e Profit Al-of-Gore.
* .
* .

Dave -wrote-
- "Boomers who went to 'nam tried pot

1st - Not All "Boomers" Went To Vietnam

2nd - Not All Vietnam Veteran Smoked 'Pot' in Vietnam

-again- Dave 'you' ASS+U+ME !
-making-you--wrong--wrong--wrong-