Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Comment 2

I posted this a while back in the comments section of an opinion piece in the AJC on the relative benefits of cap and trade. Amazingly, a few disturbed individuals actually responded with comments asking for more information about the event so they could participate in it:

Jack Wannamaker here. Listen up people, it's high time we took a stand! FREEDOMFRONT will be sponsoring a "Rev-In" in the K-Mart parking lot down at 3817 So. Jefferson Street this Saturday. And we're inviting all you BED WETTING LIBERALS to come down and watch while we rev up our monster trucks and SUV's for ONE SOLID HOUR!!! So y'all come join in - and listen to the little pinkos whine while we pump ton after ton of carbon dioxide into their precious little ozone hole!

See ya there folks!


-Wannamaker's Gas 'N Go - 3819 So. Jefferson Street
Free MegaGulp with every Fill Up!


  1. OK... A nice joke. But you pushed my button again...

    #1 The proposed Cap-and-Trade (or "Cap-n-Tax") legislation does not and cannot measurably address CO2 levels in our lifetime. Period.

    #2 - With respect to AGW, the *entire* AGW theory rests upon the ASSUMPTION that MAN-MADE CO2 is the cause of observed warming.

    I won't disagree that the climate changes - it warmer and colder from time to time. The issue with 'assigning blame' (or figuring out WHY its happening), is that that dozens of major forces are working on our climate, and none of them leave a flashing light proclaiming, "It's ME!"

    Even James Hansen and the IPCC agree that CO2, by itself, will *theoretically* warm us only by a MAXIMUM of 1.1 degrees (C) if present CO2 levels double (as they will have, from 1750 to the end of the 21st century). Most of the most frequently sited papers (e.g., Arrhenius, Calendar and Keeling), agree with this calculation. And for that matter, so do most skeptics.

    What separates the opposing sides and defines this lonely degree into a pending disaster for the planet and thereby the survival of mankind as a species - and which is used as the justification for creating a MASSIVE, unaccountable bureaucracy with the sole purpose of TAXING every citizen on the planet - are the effects of feedback.

    What are clouds, humidity, ice cover, bushes, trees and plankton going to do in a world that’s trending to be one degree warmer due to extra CO2? Does the extra humidity form the kind of clouds that trap more heat or the kind that reflect more sunlight? In other words, do these clouds increase or decrease warming?

    Now, virtually all the models - which do NOT constitute actual EVIDENCE of anything - operate on the ASSUMPTION that the feedback from increased CO2 amplify warming. However, there are three independent sources of empirical evidence which suggests the opposite occurs, and that the feedback effect is negative (i.e. “dampen”).

    Feedback is crucial to the ACCURACY of model predictions. Without feedbacks, there’s no warming more than 1.1 degrees. And just to make it more complicated, the major feedback effects are with water vapor — which is the main greenhouse gas and what makes clouds.

    *** And this is just the issue with CLOUD COVER!

    Translation: We don't know enough about how climate really works to justify doing ANYTHING, let alone doing something that we *know* will not have a measurable effect on the suspected problem.


    - Steve

  2. Get a grip Steve, it was just a joke.