But Capn, don’t forget, if it weren’t for oil, we wouldn’t have whales anymore either, since it replaced oil made from whale blubber..you know, because it was cheaper & more efficient.
Why is it so hard to understand, that if you just beat oil economically, THAT solution is impervious to the latest fads of ideological politicians? Trying to win by political will alone, is at best a house of cards.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denier

AGW deniers

Only someone who worships a practice would call someone a denier.

cosmos worships the GORACLE and his profit Hansen.

Solvents.

Pesticides.

Vet supplies.

Pharmaceuticals.

Fertilizers.

The prices on these items would also sky rocket.

What else wouldn’t be so cheap?

Anything Plastic.

Lubricants.

Insulation.

Shoes.

Tires.

Lotion.

Building Materials.

Burning oil is relatively cheap. And what makes it so cheap is that no one is paying for the environmental damage it causes.

If I burn leaves in Wichita, I get fined for stinking up the air. But if I drive a Humvee and pump tons of pollutants into the air, I’m not charged a penny.

If polluters were paying for their pollution, oil wouldn’t be so cheap.

Using his reasoning, the fact that humans relied on horses for transportation for a thousand years means that they were the best form of transportation.

You’ve probably got a “jacked up head” because you don’t seem to understand the difference between science, and policy.

The problem you keep avoiding, is the govt policy is temporary. You make a better mousetrap and you win every time.

So you don’t have any science to refute AGW science?

You just have lame personal attacks, another bogus “if “feedback” is so meaningless” attack, and irrational rants about stormwater systems?

Okay. . .

You do not even seem to know what a control is, and does.

And thank you for again proving my earlier point, by unnecessarily combining science and policy.

If you AGW deniers could refute AGW science, you wouldn’t need to post long irrational rants about policy issues.

Progressive Policy Platform

Energy:
1. Cap & trade punishes red states, because most of US oil/gas/coal production comes from solidly red states. The absolute worst states in the union fiscally, CA/NY/NJ, are the states the fed govt chooses to emulate at a national level as far as energy regs…this is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to protect those 120 or so electoral votes from those states for the Dems, ie, make the other 47 states live up to the regs that’ve failed miserably in 3 of their key strongholds??? And don’t forget the “Blue/Green Alliance” designed to ensure that unions get to benefit from all green mandates, since they never could take over the oil/gas/coal industries.
Religion:
1. Red states are usually the most Christian, so do all you can to minimize Christian influence (don’t recognize Nat’l Day of Prayer, cancel the Christian sponsored flyover this past weekend, step back from Israel & support Palestine, “we are not a Christian nation”, too many ACLU attacks to count, op/ed pgs are filled with anti-Christian propaganda almost daily, Tiller killing is a good example of taking advantage of a situation to feel free to refer to the “Christian Taliban”/”Christian Terrorists”/etc/etc/etc, same for Sanford’s situation which is more about attacking family values than it is about Sanford specifically, Dems talking of limiting charitable deductions for which churches/faith based orgs will be hurt the most)
“Right to Work”:
Obviously, right to work states are virtually all red states. Unions have choked companies in forced union states, so out comes card check talk, blatant pay-offs of UAW members, SEIU Pres who has weekly meetings w/Obama personally and was the only non medical field/politician representative allowed at the healthcare “roundtables” held at the WH, etc.
Healthcare:
The states in the worst shape from healthcare costs are virtually all blue states (other than maybe border areas in TX/AZ), unions have killed competitive viability in blue states with healthcare costs of employees/retirees, doctors are reducing patient load of medicare/medicaid patients (Dems especially target poor for votes) due to inability to cover costs based on govt mandated fees, talk of taxing those with healthcare benefits, utilization 2006 Census Bureau stat of “47M without insurance” but adding no context as that spot # included 9.5M illegal immigrants, 17M in households with income in excess of $50k, 18M between the ages of 18-34 and were most likely least in need of insurance or chose not to buy it, only 30% of nonelderly people who became uninsured remained uninsured for more than 12 mos – 50% regained insurance in 4 mos or less, or how many were “elderly” who were within 12 mos of being eligible for Medicare so chose to wait it out….yet now BOTH parties site the 47M as a blanket uninsured # and VERY few ever add any context to it…in other words, the GOP is letting the Dems control the propaganda unchallenged.

(Btw, still not scientifically “prudent” to experiment with multiple inputs..unless you just want to make the results unverifiable).
————————-

LOL!

It’s not scientifically “prudent” to experiment without a control — there is no control for the experiment that humans have been running on Earth’s climate system.

And DFB. . . you’ve probably got a “jacked up head” because you don’t seem to understand the difference between science, and policy.

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to prioritize and attack the most critical “input” first?
———————–

It’s more prudent and logical to reduce both CO2 and CH4 levels, simultaneously.

Are you going to reverse field on water vapor too and suggest that it would be logical if it were sharply reduced too?
———————————–

DFB,

Please try to learn the basics.

Water vapour is a feedback, and we do not (at this time) have any way to control global levels.

What “claim” is it exactly that I’m supposed to provide support for?
——————————

Who claimed that methane is “irrelevant”?

S/he just can’t understand that I was making fun of her/him for making a big deal out of methane’s GWP of 25, but ignoring the fact that methane levels are lower than CO2.

DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm

In all the factors that effect climate, how does C02 stack up against:
. . .
3. Methane make sure you count the fact that methane is 25 times more “GHG”ish than C02
—————————–

Hey DFB! What do you think about SF6, which has a GWP of about 23,000 !

You did, over and over and over.
Suddenly after a few days of back and forth….you post
“And the strategy of trying to reduce CH4 emissions sharply is logical, because it has a shorter lifetime than CO2.”
Funny, because all this time, you’ve tried to point to everything available to suggest that methane is irrelevant vs C02…remember your comments like “do you even know what the “b” means in ppb?” How many times did I ask you to show how each factor compares/contrasts relative to each other??
In “science”…how do you know which “input” is responsible for whatever results if you change multiple “inputs”? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to prioritize and attack the most critical “input” first? Are you going to reverse field on water vapor too and suggest that it would be logical if it were sharply reduced too?
Why now is it a logical strategy to go after CH4 as well as C02?? Was it purely because you had to figure out how to reframe the livestock burp/fart debate to try and make it appear as if you’ve been supporting reduction of CH4 all along??
What “claim” is it exactly that I’m supposed to provide support for?