The purveyors of wealth transference are losing the Alarmist Warming Debate, and for good reason:

18 shares

<<<  Not exactly accurate of the Greenie's model, but,  it just may be close to their model when put into effect in the real world.  Note: if the trade involves a compliant U.S. company and an international "violator,"  CO2 emissions  remain the same while related job growth moves out of country,  to the violators who have, now, be validated by the Greenies.  Genius !!!!

What follows are several comments written onto Master Resource,  an excellent energy blog.  The hyperlinked article, here,  detailes 10 positives that have come from the alarmist warming debate.  The article includes such points as an expanded growing season,  "greener" forests,  and the fact that global tropical cyclone activity is at a 40 year low.  The article is well worth the read.  I am adding the blog to my blogroll,  as well.  

While the article was excellent,  I found many of the "comments" to be just as informational.  Here are a few examples:  


Comment from Bill Yader:

You haven’t been paying attention. Use a 60 year sine curve (30 warming, 30 cooling) and superimpose a 0.6C/century positive trend and you will reproduce 80+% of the temperature fluctuations over the past 160 years. You don’t need CO2 concentrations. You need solar cycles and ocean cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc) to explain why a 60 year sine curver is so representative of Earth’s temperatures. The positive linear trend is due to the warming from the end of the LIA.

Beyond the last 160 years, you have to factor in some of the 200 and 1,000 year fluctuations identified in geologic and ice core records. Those still need to be better understood.

Skeptics do not deny that the Earth has warmed since the LIA ended 160 years ago, we challenge the theory that CO2 has anything to do with that warming.

- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/04/earth-day-2012-top-10-positives/#sthash.w8zVmgWV.dpuf

Len { 04.24.12 at 12:37 am }

Climate models have proved, at least now and for the foreseeable future, that future climates cannot be predicted. Real scientific research is needed, at a reduced level from global warming research, to advance our understanding of the physical sustems controlling climate. The recent era of conspiracy, fighting transparancy, and “science” by press release has done imeasurable harm to all science. Therefore, this article [the positives of global warming ~ editor] is entirely justifiable and a much, much truer statement of the past, present, and probable future climate that all the alarmist Lysinkoism. Thank you.

ferd berple { 04.24.12 at 12:54 am }

CO2 economics is all about getting consumers to pay the cost of closing factories in the industrialized west where costs are high and moving them to the 3rd world where costs are low. Carbon trading [as in "cap and trade" ~ editor]  doesn’t reduce carbon, it only moves where it is produced. Along with it goes the jobs. However, the carbon returns on the wind. The jobs do not.

rbradley { 04.24.12 at 4:14 am }

I would like to thank everyone for these comments.

It really helps the debate to have David Appell and Dan Kirk-Davidoff provide links to research that Chip can then review. Thank you in particular.

On the ‘skeptic model,’ I have been told that the microphysics of climate is far too complex to model period. So we can’t have ‘our’ model beat ‘their’ model. Their oversimplified model must be exposed by theoretical disputes and by empirical anomolies.

This (imperfect) analogy may have flaws, but today, and perhaps for more decades, the climate can no more be modeled than the economy can be modeled.