Countries that didn’t manufacture CFC’s, including developing countries, used ozone depleting chemicals — refrigeration, foam, etc. Those countries were part of the treaty.

“Every living animal” did NOT cause CO2 to rise from 280 ppm to 380 ppm (and STILL climbing). Humans burning of fossil-fuels, etc caused that.

“Every living plant” does NOT need human-caused elevated CO2 levels. The higher CO2 will cause heat and moisture STRESS for plants. Plus insect problems, such as bark beetles.And less phytoplankton and coral in the oceans.

Are you going to reply to my post to you re your #1 and #2?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486Are you scared to “debate”?

Every living animal produces CO2

Every living plant needs CO2

‘CLIMATE CHANGE: Southwestern U.S. Becoming a Dust Bowl’http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37239“Despite these and other efforts [to reduce water usage], Nevada ranks 41st in water consumption among the 50 U.S. states. Like much of the drought-stricken west, between 80 and 90 percent of the region’s water goes to agriculture — cattle, animal feed and vegetables.

“Agriculture will disappear so water can flow to growing urban areas,” predicted Karl Flessa, a geoscientist at the University of Arizona. “It’s already happening.”

Cities can grow enormously large by reducing agriculture. But on balance, that’s not good for the natural environment, Flessa said in an interview.”

The international treaty to phase out CFC’s WORKED.

Are you going to reply to my post to you re your #1 and #2?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486

Or just HIDE in denial, and/or ignorance? Are you scared to “debate”?

There are so many assumptions in this “argument” that it’s not funny. Also, I freely admit that the format of this blog site presents an insurmountable (for me only, apparently) barrier to further argument on my part.

For instance, your point is only valid if you meant to write “unilateral reduction in US demand,” if you assume that ROW (rest of world) will choose to use carbon sources exclusively for energy in the face of US leadership, that the supply curve of carbon-based energy can’t be shifted “left” at the same time as demand (US or ROW or US + ROW) is shifted “left,” and I’m sure if I gave this 5 minutes more thought I could come up with a handful of other serious problems with your economic “analysis.”

But Saturday night beckons, and the WE blog format makes me lazy…

That said, Econ101, it’s not hard to see why some here accuse you of either:1) selective reasoning, or2) shilling for Big Oil.

Have a GREAT Saturday night and Easter!

I’m not stuck on 1 and 2. Are you stuck in denial?

Are you going to reply to my post to you re 1 and 2?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486

Or just HIDE in denial, and/or ignorance? Are you scared to “debate”?

1.)Is warming happening?2.)Is man causing the warming?3.)Can man stop any warming?4.)Is the cost of any policy worth the benefits?5.)Can the US solve this “problem” by itself? Wont reduction in US demand simply decrease the international cost of carbon, which will increase the international use of carbon, meaning any US effort will be canceled out by economics!6.)How can we trust international treaties to “solve” this problem, when treaties are weak tools on trade, weapons, copywrite law and drug control? Besides, with most of the world living in poverty, how can we convince the developing world to starve while Al Gore lives in luxury?

It wont work, we will be using more carbon 10 and 20 years from now than we do today.

You STILL don’t understand the difference between weather and climate??? That’s very sad…

Paul F. Rosell: “And this article is actually written by a Phd in Climatology:”

His degree was in historical geography, and as a doctor of philosophy (not science). He was a professor of geography for only eight years.

‘Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won’t Die’http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

I suggest cross checking EVERYTHING Ball, and Rosell write.

Record cold — must be global warming!

“If you can get God to lower the price of solar or the price of wind, go for it! lol”

So “God” is responsible for lowering the costs of wind farms, developing lower-cost thin film PV’s, etc.? I thought engineers, scientists, more production, etc. lowered costs.

Since you read my post, are you going to reply to my post to you upthread?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486

Or just HIDE in denial, and/or ignorance?

Again, you guys don’t want a scientific debate, you just want to open science up to an election for ideological reasons.

For example, evolution. Let’s vote on whether evolution happens, or not. Next, let’s vote on global warming. Does the fact that we as a species mine and burn a ginormous amount of previously buried (approaching the limit of volatility, in fact) petrocarbons each second of each minute of each hour, 24/7/365, have any impact on earth’s atmosphere at all? Answer yes, if yer a commie, or no, if you’re a reasonable person.

LOL

Also:

“100 percent agreement on every subject is not what Democratic Republic is all about.”Posted by: Republican | April 07, 2007 at 04:43 PM

I guess you guys will demand 100% agreement on global warming before you’ll get off your ass, but [christ, I'm chokin' I'm laughin' so hard here] for a Democratic Republic you’ll accept something more reasonable.

Jesus wept or spat, either way there’s some unnecessary and tragic reasoning of yours on display here.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/

And this article is actually written by a Phd in Climatology:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Those who claim that science is settled on this issue are lying!

Besides, it DOESNT MATTER if warming is happening and it doesnt matter if man is causing any warming if it cant be fixed.

Global Warming is simply a way to empower the UN, empower government and stop growth.

Global Warming alarmists dont care if they kill off millions of people by killing the economy.

They are pushing global starvation in the name of stopping global warming.

Ben, you sound extremely arrogant when you claim only Phd’s are qualified to disagree with you.

Even by your snobbish rules, where only the inteligentsia rule, you have failed to silence hundreds if not thousands of scientists with more qualifications than you.

Make you a deal, Ben:

Write Gore a letter and tell Gore he is not qualified to speak on this topic.I will then consider you less a hypocrite a more of an expert!

Remember, the anti-science crowd said JFK was crazy when he said we could put a man on the moon by the end of the 60s.

Oh well, I guess the science-haters STILL claim it was only a Hollywood set.

If you can get God to lower the price of solar or the price of wind, go for it! lol

Seriously, I understand that you meant the technology to use those resources efficiently.

Come on libs, these “magic bullets” you keep comming up with are not ready for prime time.

Solar and wind are GREAT alternatives, but they will never be our primary source of electric power!

http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

So you jump straight from denial to despair?

AGW is based on very sound science, not “religion”.

Paul F. Rosell: “There is absolutely no way any other fuel can be used in China for a cheaper price than China’s own coal.”

China doesn’t have sunshine and wind? You’re 100% certain they couldn’t use solar and wind, if we dropped the costs?

They wouldn’t benefit from higher energy efficiency, distributed generation, H2, and other new technolgies?

Are you going to reply to my post to you upthread?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486

Or just HIDE in denial, and/or ignorance?

Back to what I consider the point of the linked article: water scarcity and issues of allocation thereof. It appears from what I read that regardless of what we may argue the cause therefor is, there is a long-term drought underway in the Southwest, calling into question the allocation of the dwindling amount of potable water between the urban areas and the agricultural interests competing therefor. Such allocation is a proper subject for a debate over water policies in arid areas, including the Western part of Kansas.

While it may be argued that the ag interests should suffer, as the same shouldn’t be trying to grow crops in arid areas which need irrigation to survive, I like to eat, and have water to drink. Thus, I posit the allocation issues should be resolved in favor of the ag interests; what do others think?

Farmgirl:People die in financial depressions.People died in the Great Depression that would not have died had our economy been better.People also die in recessions, due to economic reasons.American charity to the third world drops dramatically when America falls on hard times.Same with domestic charity.A good stock market is good for charity.A bad stock market is bad for charity.A carbon tax, as proposed by Gore or KYOTO, will destroy the international economy.People will die due to absurd, abstract predictions of doom.Liberals will accept REAL death today, to assuage their collective guilt about projected, abstract, death in the future!