BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

[BVS]

That was a cheap video about C02 and its benefits but there are others who agree and they are scientists as well. They make more sense than the EPA calling greenhouse gases dangerous. They target C02 but by saying greenhouse gases they would have to include water vapour if they want to be scientific. Your response article simply said there was uncertainty which is hardly a doom and gloom mass extinction argument that is being bandied around. I posted a peer-reviewed (who cares?) ocean acidification abstract that showed that ocean acidification damage is also uncertain.

I don't care how cheap the video was, the science was bad. You can't support that video and then say your catch phrase "would have to include water vapour" about other studies. Your video eliminated all kinds of factors in order to prove it's point. See? You don't really know how real science works... It's baffling, you wouldn't make it past 9th grade science where I grew up.

That's great but when it comes to economics and politics and especially this subject the main argument is appeal to authority which these emails have challenged.

This is such bullshit. You still think you're an economics expert? You're the poster that said saving makes jobs And you've constantly confused the micro with the macro in order to answer questions.

I've asked you this before but no answer, but what about the science outside of these emails that supports climate change?

I think it makes more sense to wait the time we need to create better technologies and let the economies grow (especially in the 3rd world) and then naturally replace oil than to damage economies slightly while still increasing C02 and letting global governance a foot in the door.

What's the point of creating "better" technologies if burning oil is good for the air, nothing is wrong with the status quo, right? That's what you and the other cronies have been saying, so what's the point of searching for other technologies, it's just going to cost money?

 

[A_Wanderer]

A relevant blog post

Who argues the most from authority?
Google results for +"nobel laureate" +X, where X is one of the following:

Chemistry: 317,000
Physics: 415,000
Medicine: 467,000
Economics: 484,000

Of course, there are more winners to refer to in Physics than in Economics, so we should control for that. Dividing the number of Google results by the number of winners gives these per capita rates:

Chemistry: 2032
Physics: 2231
Medicine: 2395
Economics: 7446

If the intellectual merit of a body of ideas is not so well established, you're more likely to deflect attention by reassuring everyone that, hey, it can't be that crazy -- after all, the guy is a Nobel laureate. Perhaps that's why physics ranks above chemistry here, what with string theory etc. taking it further into speculation compared to more grounded chemistry.

Gene Expression: Who argues the most from authority?

 

[purpleoscar]

I don't care how cheap the video was, the science was bad. You can't support that video and then say your catch phrase "would have to include water vapour" about other studies. Your video eliminated all kinds of factors in order to prove it's point. See? You don't really know how real science works... It's baffling, you wouldn't make it past 9th grade science where I grew up.

I just watched the video and he still makes more sense than the EPA. Sure the music sucks and it's cheap but he didn't eliminate everything. He showed that C02 is not a pollutant by increasing the C02 ppm content beyond what it is like now and showed that the plants benefited from it. I've also posted a new peer-reviewed study on ocean acidification putting a damper on AWanderer's claim of mass extinction. If you think this guy's fish tank studies suck then you should be equally skeptical of computer models, especially after what Gavin said nonchalantly about not understanding the climate system. Yet these models somehow are "good tools".

My comment on water vapour has to do with the fact that if we don't know how the largest greenhouse gas works (also we can't control it) then the EPA is casting a too broad a stroke on their legislation. Do we have the power to control water vapour to change the climate? It was just a political stunt to scare the Senate into passing some kind of cap and trade legislation because EPA would just cap.

This is such bullshit. You still think you're an economics expert? You're the poster that said saving makes jobs And you've constantly confused the micro with the macro in order to answer questions.

I've asked you this before but no answer, but what about the science outside of these emails that supports climate change?

Micro and macro economics are just abstract labels. BTW I answered this a long time ago. The main economic unit is the individual. Without the individual how can the overall economy go forward. Keynesians are obsessed by retail sales but if the individual can't buy anymore (due to high personal debt) then companies that need those retail sales can't just rely on other companies for sales unless those other companies are also having sales to individuals. You can't ignore the individual.

Look at Japan. They've been doing stimulus for over a decade and their debt is 100% of GDP. Stimulus is simply more debt except it's from the government on behalf of the taxpayer. The way to grow the economy is to produce goods and services faster than you can consume them and then trade those surpluses with other countries that have surpluses of goods and services we don't have. Then when the individual (along with companies and governemnts) invest their money, what do they invest in? They invest in other economic activities that require borrowed money to buy capital assets (long-term expensive assets like machinery and buildings) so they can start producing goods and services. They also need retained earnings (another term for savings except for corporations) to invest in projects in order to expand capacity and lower prices so we can consume at a higher standard of living.

As individuals invest and earn interest, dividends & capital gains they can reinvest that money and compound their investments to earn more income. The point of saving is so when you are too old and sick to work or just don't want to work anymore you have a nest egg that pays you enough income from the investments (and social security for many people) so they can retire. This is why PPP Purchase power parity is better than GDP because it accounts for how inflation dilutes our buying power even when we get pay raises.

Now on the studies outside of those emails that you remark on, they are also being questioned because we are still seeing hockey stick graphs and currently not all freedom of information requests have been granted. See this video:

CNN’s “Global Warming: Trick or Truth” | CEJournal

Now with the email scandal I don't think holding back information will be as tolerated and will send the wrong signals if people continue to go that way. I also posted the Wegman report which concluded this:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf

Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

Then when you get emails that show gaming of the peer-review system and AGW supporters desperately use peer-review as a way of not recognizing other scientists you have to wonder how much independence there really is.

This video doesn't help. Does Nye know that FOIA information being deleted is illegal?

YouTube - Patrick J. Michaels discusses Climategate on CNN

All he has is that the world got warmer (not in the last 8 years) but since the little ice age and so we "have to do something about it". The skeptics are wondering can we? How much is natural and how much is man-made?

Also the IPCC scientist numbers are still being argued as we speak:

YouTube - Developing World Told to Make Sacrifices to Save the Planet

What's the point of creating "better" technologies if burning oil is good for the air, nothing is wrong with the status quo, right? That's what you and the other cronies have been saying, so what's the point of searching for other technologies, it's just going to cost money?

Because most of the C02 comes from natural sources and the burned coal, oil and natural gas only make a portion of the C02 in the atmosphere, so when we (hopefully) find a great new technology that keeps our standard of living stable and increases it we can be on renewable resources instead of finite fossil fuels. Yes the fossil fuels currently are plenty and new technologies are finding ways to improve efficiency of drilling so we don't have to worry about that for hundreds of years but at some point it will run out. If no other technology like (nuclear fusion) or something else comes out we at least have nuclear fission. That's why I don't want to slow economic growth because we need investment in new technologies which is cheaper than cap and trade. Bjorn Lomborg believes in AGW but he doesn't feel any reduction targets will be met and if they are it won't stop much warming based on those crappy computer models. That's why a crazy person like Maurice Strong was talking about reducing 95% of our C02 which would be economic suicide the public wouldn't tolerate. This is also why he doesn't like the ballot box because the public will revolt from the hardship caused by that measure. I just don't think there is a consensus and after seeing all those challenges to Al Gore's documentary and all those alarmist predictions from WWF in the past going wrong I can't help being skeptical.

 

[purpleoscar]

A relevant blog postGene Expression: Who argues the most from authority?

Thanks for proving my point. Good post. Since conservative and libertarian economists are outnumbered by Keynesians and "Conservatives in name only" you can see that predictions that we won't have more recessions because "it's different now" due to derivatives or "it's different now" because of the tech boom was an abuse of authority. This fits in nicely with the green boom that will bust if no cap and trade is passed in the U.S.

 

[INDY500]

Chavez, Morales, Mugabe lash out at Copenhagen

In speeches greeted with occasional ripples of applause, the long-term critics of Western policy lashed out at what they called the hypocrisy of the world's wealthy elite.

Mr Chavez, the President of Venezuela, was one of the first world leaders to take the podium at the venue of the Copenhagen talks.

Mr Chavez, paraphrasing Karl Marx, said "a ghost is stalking the streets of Copenhagen... it's capitalism, capitalism is that ghost."

"The destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life," he said.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion, “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, the Andean nation's first indigenous leader, said that the capitalist system itself bore blame for climate change.

"Climate change isn't a problem of technology or financing... It's an issue of way of life and a result of the capitalist system and if we don't understand that then we're never going to resolve these problems."

The anti-capitalist theme was picked up on by Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe's veteran President, who is the target of Western sanctions over alleged human rights abuses.

"When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die."

I fear that even quoting these people won't convince some of you of what the true agenda is here.

 

[Diemen]

Yes, because clearly Chavez, Morales and Mugabe are the ones leading the charge on climate change. And since they're anti-capitalism, everyone involved must be too.

I once was blind but now I see, INDY.

 

[BVS]

Still beating those odds INDY

 

[INDY500]

Yes, because clearly Chavez, Morales and Mugabe are the ones leading the charge on climate change.

Because they face no real opposition these guys just aren't as well versed in the minced enviro-speak of "environmental justice," "investment in green jobs," "carbon trading," and "global moral imperative." They just say what they mean.

And since they're anti-capitalism, everyone involved must be too.

When “Capitalism is the road to hell” gets a standing ovation from the delegates, well, it should at least give pause.

 

[Diemen]

Bears repeating.

 

[melon]

I fear that even quoting these people won't convince some of you of what the true agenda is here.

Worth re-posting...

The conservative response should involve ways to enact green technology without sacrificing economic growth. Instead, the response has been roughly equivalent to burying their heads in the sand and having an infantile temper tantrum.

If conservatives don't wish to substantively contribute to public discourse, don't be surprised then when the rest of the world isn't interested in listening to them.

 

[melon]

Bears repeating.

Hah...now there's a hive mind moment...

 

[INDY500]

Nothing?

Putting aside the trillions in higher taxes and higher energy and fuel costs we will pay. What about the loss of personal liberties? Say goodbye to driving what you want, where you want, when you want. Gone with that the freedom to travel both domestically and abroad. And already there are calls for central temperature controls via the smart grid, banning of big screen Tvs, banning of incandescent light bulbs, meat rationing and one child per family restrictions.

And can a price even be put on forfeiting our national sovereignty to unaccountable global governing bodies?

Sure, "nothing" if you ignore all that.

 

[BVS]

Paranoid much?

Where is this one child, can't travel here, must watch small TV bill?

Where INDY, where? I've asked you before, you couldn't answer, so I ask you again...

WHERE?

 

[Irvine511]

And can a price even be put on forfeiting our national sovereignty to unaccountable global governing bodies?

you mean like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

 

[anitram]

What about the loss of personal liberties? Say goodbye to driving what you want, where you want, when you want.

That's right, you will be priced out of your right to drive a Hummer down city streets. Get over it and focus on actually meaningful things.

 

[Bluer White]

Because they face no real opposition these guys just aren't as well versed in the minced enviro-speak of "environmental justice," "investment in green jobs," "carbon trading," and "global moral imperative." They just say what they mean.

INDY, why bother bringing up bit players like Chavez and Mugabe...


when real economic powers like China are rushing to join the Climate Cartel?

 

[melon]

Nothing?

Putting aside the trillions in higher taxes and higher energy and fuel costs we will pay. What about the loss of personal liberties? Say goodbye to driving what you want, where you want, when you want. Gone with that the freedom to travel both domestically and abroad. And already there are calls for central temperature controls via the smart grid, banning of big screen Tvs, banning of incandescent light bulbs, meat rationing and one child per family restrictions.

And can a price even be put on forfeiting our national sovereignty to unaccountable global governing bodies?

Sure, "nothing" if you ignore all that.

So the response, then, is to bury your head in the sand and have a temper tantrum. If you're concerned about higher taxes, then suggest ways as to how government can be more efficient with the taxes it currently has--i.e., for example, cutting other programs to fund new priorities.

As for driving restrictions, those are wholly unnecessary if new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, as one example, are adopted. The upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs in the U.S., one must be reminded, happened on Bush's watch; but also had led to more efficiency:

Prompted by U.S. legislation mandating increased bulb efficiency by 2012, new "hybrid" incandescent bulbs have been introduced by Philips. The "Halogena Energy Saver" incandescent is 30 percent more efficient than traditional designs, using a special chamber to reflect formerly-wasted heat back to the filament to provide additional lighting power.

Who here is surprised that no company bothered to implement this before the threat of a ban?

In terms of the erosion of personal liberties...well, I'd ask where were you when the Patriot Act was being written, for instance? That aside, these are concerns that can be dealt with by conservatives as constructive criticism. The operative word here is constructive. That means offering alternative plans that can achieve similar conservation goals with fewer sacrifices. Spouting denialist conspiracy theories and other incoherencies with the expressed goal of resisting change of any kind will solely lead to the Left setting the entire agenda, and I would quite firmly argue that there is danger in any ideology--Left or Right--forging policy unchallenged. But that's precisely what you're going to get the longer the Right insists on an essentially 19th century approach for 21st century energy needs.

 

[melon]

As an aside, why the incandescent bulb isn't going away, due to efficiency innovations prompted by legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?_r=2&hp

Researchers across the country have been racing to breathe new life into Thomas Edison’s light bulb, a pursuit that accelerated with the new legislation. Amid that footrace, one company is already marketing limited quantities of incandescent bulbs that meet the 2012 standard, and researchers are promising a wave of innovative products in the next few years.

Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

“There’s a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly,” said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”

 

[Irvine511]

it does seem that American Capitalism is the strongest force in the history of the world and can solve any and all problems (health care, for one) ... but a few environmental regulations will kill it dead as a doornail.

 

[INDY500]

Paranoid much?

Where is this one child, can't travel here, must watch small TV bill?

Where INDY, where? I've asked you before, you couldn't answer, so I ask you again...

WHERE?

Ask and ye shall receive.

California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011

California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011 | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

China says one-child policy helps protect climate

Reuters AlertNet - China says one-child policy helps protect climate

 

[Irvine511]

and what's amazing, is that technologies like LED for HDTVs will get better and better as a result of pending legislation. environmental regulations have a way of spurring along innovation -- they work the magic you think tax cuts do.

as for the one-child policy (and the One World Government) -- that's Black Helicopter stuff.

 

[BVS]

California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011 | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

You conservatives have never been any good at nuance. This is not a ban on big screen TVs, this is a control on how much energy one TV can use. You'll still be able to watch your porn on a big screen, don't worry.

Reuters AlertNet - China says one-child policy helps protect climate

Hate to point out the obvious, but I guess this is what it's come down to... China has always tried to control it's population, and we are not China.

I can't even say "nice try"...

Epic fail, paranoia will cause stress and stress will take years off your life. The more you're informed(by real information) the longer you'll live. Give it a try!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Energy efficient TV's = big savings over the lifetime of the TV

 

[INDY500]

environmental regulations have a way of spurring along innovation -- they work the magic you think tax cuts do.

So does free market competition.

as for the one-child policy (and the One World Government) -- that's Black Helicopter stuff.

Oh I don't worry 'bout them black helicopters. If anitram is going to ban hummers then I don't expect big fuel-gulping black helicopters to be too far behind.

Limos and private jets for "the elites" will remain of course.

 

[INDY500]

So the response, then, is to bury your head in the sand and have a temper tantrum. If you're concerned about higher taxes, then suggest ways as to how government can be more efficient with the taxes it currently has--i.e., for example, cutting other programs to fund new priorities.

As for driving restrictions, those are wholly unnecessary if new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, as one example, are adopted. The upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs in the U.S., one must be reminded, happened on Bush's watch; but also had led to more efficiency:

There are big issues with hydrogen. The energy density is very low limiting the range of vehicles. The size of the fuel tank to travel 300 miles is enormous.
Plus it takes energy to produce and transport. And, if I remember right causes the emission of water vapor, itself a greenhouse gas.

In terms of the erosion of personal liberties...well, I'd ask where were you when the Patriot Act was being written, for instance? That aside, these are concerns that can be dealt with by conservatives as constructive criticism. The operative word here is constructive. That means offering alternative plans that can achieve similar conservation goals with fewer sacrifices. Spouting denialist conspiracy theories and other incoherencies with the expressed goal of resisting change of any kind will solely lead to the Left setting the entire agenda, and I would quite firmly argue that there is danger in any ideology--Left or Right--forging policy unchallenged. But that's precisely what you're going to get the longer the Right insists on an essentially 19th century approach for 21st century energy needs.

I agree to a point but it's hard to get constructive ideas out in today's culture. I suspect that's why Climate Change advocates have resorted to emotional messages involving flooded American cities, dead polar bears and doe-eyed children pleading, "Please save the earth." The dearth of real leadership in both parties regarding all aspects of our energy policy is disheartening to say the least.

And the pop culture and mainstream media is dug in and entrenched in its presentation of the Climate Change debate. Pro-conservative or business they ain't.

 

[anitram]

If anitram is going to ban hummers then I don't expect big fuel-gulping black helicopters to be too far behind.

I didn't say I would ban them; I said you'd be priced out of owning one.

 

[INDY500]

Global Wealth Can Heal the Planet
Jonah Goldberg
Friday, December 18, 2009

As the Copenhagen climate summit comes to close, it seems fair to say that rarely has a gathering of so many doing so little gotten so much attention. But Copenhagen does have its uses. For starters, it reminds us that environmentalism continues to be a cover for uglier agendas.

Bolivian president Evo Morales was interviewed by Al Jazeera television while in Copenhagen. "The principal obstacle to combating climate change is capitalism," he explained. "Until we put an end to capitalism, it will continue to be a big obstacle for life and humanity."

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe proclaimed in a speech: "When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere, who gasp and sink and eventually die."

Right. That is, unless Mugabe kills them first.

The big name in the anti-capitalism club was, of course, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan national-socialist strongman. In a typical stem-winder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."

I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.

for Diemen

Now, I know that nice, moderate progressive types are rolling their eyes at my cynical effort to associate their noble activism with support for socialism and thugs. Fair enough. Let us concede that many, perhaps even most, proponents of draconian restrictions on carbon emissions have no sympathy for socialist dictators and do not want to chuck capitalism in the dustbin of history. But surely it should trouble these responsible greens that they're in bed with a "Star Wars" cantina of villains and monsters.

Also, if environmentalists want to avoid the "watermelon" charge ("green on the outside, red on the inside"), maybe the delegates and activists in the audience shouldn't have given Chavez such a loud and boisterous round of applause? Perhaps the folks who gave him a standing ovation didn't help either?

The simple truth is that hostility to freedom (i.e., economic liberty and political democracy) and fondness for non-democratic statism suffuses much of the environmental movement. I will confess to having a minor obsession with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, who consistently writes of his confessed envy for China's authoritarian regime. But I am trying to wean myself off Friedman-bashing lest he get a restraining order.

For BVS

So consider instead Diane Francis, a ballyhooed Canadian pundit. In a recent Financial Post column, Francis wrote that the "'inconvenient truth' overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world." She insists that "the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate" is to implement a "planetary law, such as China's one-child policy."

Population control has always been at the heart of the progressive project, so it's no surprise that it's in fashion once again.

But Francis' proposal is particularly disgusting, not least because Francis has two children. I think the hypocrisy charge is overused in political debate these days, but when you tout a totalitarian police state's population policy of, among other things, forced abortions, you might try harder to practice what you preach. Think globally, act locally and all that.

But Francis' argument is also stunningly stupid, as are virtually all of the complaints about capitalism being the root of the problem.

The historical record is clear: Democratic free-market nations are better at protecting their environments than statist regimes for the simple reason that they can afford to. West Germany's environment was far cleaner than East Germany's. I'd much sooner drink the tap water in South Korea than North Korea.

Mugabe rails against capitalism as if he has a better idea of how to run things. That's almost funny given that Mugabe has destroyed what was once a great cause for hope in Africa, in large part by abandoning capitalism and democracy. Zimbabwe now has the highest inflation rate in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies. Let's hope nobody was taking notes when he was giving out advice.

Moreover, capitalism, and the wealth it creates, is the best means of bending down the population curve. Don't take my word for it. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change acknowledges that "affluence is correlated with long life and small families" and that growing prosperity will cause world population to decline even further.

Sage words for everyone

Want to know the best way to heal the planet? Create more rich countries. Want to know the best way to hurt the planet? Throw a wet blanket on economic growth.

 

[BVS]

Still no link to an American proposal on "one child per family" eh?

Wow, I thought that would be so easy...

 

[Irvine511]

So does free market competition.

which falls flat on it's face and dies like an Ewok in the face of even modest environmental regulations, apparently.

 

[purpleoscar]

Worth re-posting...

So the premise is that higher energy prices = a better world? That fact that a fall back argument for AGW that admits that this could be based on false evidence is pretty desperate to me.

Energy independence:

How about using domestic supplies of carbon based fuel and nuclear power? (At least you like nuclear power). Yet McCain lost the election so no dice. Also Obama said he would be interested in nuclear power but nothing has been decided yet on this.

Preservable rainforests:

This is a problem related to bad economics. People cut down the forest because they can't get other jobs. Then you have a dependency problem of creating welfare societies in other countries. These countries need better economics (trade, private property rights, lower taxes) so they can build wealth and have enough surplus to put people through school. But hey that would mean less sociologists.

Sustainability

I translate this as: those who are in power are more sustainable than those without power. What is it with left-wing buzz words that sound so cold and glib?

Green jobs:

Yeah we'll all work on solar panels and wind farms. The problem is that they are too expensive. There will be net job losses. Until wind doesn't require coal plants and solar creates enough energy to be cheap enough it's still anti-growth or is just a supplement that allows C02 to grow in the atmosphere anyways.

Livable cities:

People live in cities more than ever before so I think they already are livable. That's the kind of thing I might write in an essay when the question requires 9 marks and I can only find 8 marks.

Renewables:

Yeah when? Until that happens we have to enjoy a carbon diet.

Clean water and air:

C02 is not spoiling water and air. Even ocean acidification arguments are shown to be overly catestrophic in new peer reviewed studies.

Healthy children:

Come on guys! People are living longer than before. We know that fossil fuels in Africa would be better than burning wood and would create more healthy children and allow for higher standards of living for those healthier children.

The conservative response should involve ways to enact green technology without sacrificing economic growth. Instead, the response has been roughly equivalent to burying their heads in the sand and having an infantile temper tantrum.

Or maybe it's because they are out of power in the U.S. I think the left is having the temper tantrum.

If conservatives don't wish to substantively contribute to public discourse, don't be surprised then when the rest of the world isn't interested in listening to them.

What the hell have I been posting? Conservatives have to be in power in the U.S.. Until this happens the left is trying to gain power grabs and make money in a fashion that would look more like war profiteers. Bjorn Lomborg by himself has created a list already that would find priorities that would all be better and achieve some of the list in that cartoon more efficiently. Instead of creating cap and trade how about funding research for better technologies until they are ready for primetime instead of giving corrupt dictators our money?

After all these emails leaking, the idea that the left wants to debate is just plain wrong.

Try and debate with these people:​

YouTube - Proud Flag-Waving Communists and Socialists March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming

YouTube - Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda

Here's a conservative trying to debate with socialists:​

YouTube - Climate denier Lord Monckton gets pwned!

Oh here's some more "debate":​

YouTube - Don't like someone's POV? Toss fruit at them. Phelim McAleer with Neil Cavuto

As long as the left is in power the only thing stopping the power grab is other countries not playing ball and no treaty is created. As long as idiots like Waxman and Markey are creating bills there won't be any conservative ideas on the table because that's not part of their agenda. If you can't admit that the left has an agenda then that's your problem.