And, reducing CO2 won’t make the world any cleaner, because CO2 is colorless, odorless, tasteless gas. Of course, people will be able to appreciate the world more then. They’ll have plenty of time, what with the lack of work. Just don’t expect to see far away places. You won’t be able to afford to travel. Only the Goracle and his con-artist friends can afford to take trips with the money we are forced to pay them for their “carbon offset” snake oil.

(Gore) - I feel so good about myself.

(the gored) - But you didn’t accomplish anything.

((Gore) - Well, at least I tried.

(the gored) - You did nothing. I’m the one who made all the sacrifices.

(Gore) - But I’m the one who told you how.

(the gored) - Yeah, and all that happend was I got poorer and you got richer.

(Gore) - Them’s the breaks, chum. But don’t worry, I’m working on my next great project.

(the gored) - [Blinks, mouth wide in disbelief, then looks around for heavy blunt object.]

John McCain said that “even if we are wrong” about global warming, we’ll still get a cleaner world. Well, we won’t because China has almost no controls on emissions. The soot that is already coming out of their coal fired power plants is reaching the North Western U.S.

Another point is that the Environazis used to claim that “no credible scientist” opposes their view on global warming. That big lie is as outrageous as the rest of their claims. Glad to see the truth is getting out.

Yes, but the question I was answering was if anyone thought that global warming was good. I wasn’t addressing the “existence and/or root causes.” And since the economists’ analyses are essential to the topic I was addressing, I figured it would be ok to use one for reference.

Also, sorry, I didn’t pick up on the fact that you weren’t vouching for the Goreacle.

…glad you liked the refs.

What are Al Gore’s qualifications? He’s never done any independent research. He’s not an economist or an historian. But, he IS a con artist.

Exactly what is your problem with an economist dealing with the economical impact of global warming, anyway? Using his expertise he is analyising just how we should prepare to deal with what happens if the earth gets warmer, and/or if CO2 levels raise.

Are you aware that the IPCC itself relies heavily on economists for it’s assessment, though it frequently distorts their conclusions to suit it’s predetermined views? So, yes, the views of economists are indispensable in assessing the impact of climate on economies.

Remember, the IPCC write the conclusions, and they are political bureaucrats, not scientists. The science tells you what might happen.  The economist tells you how to deal with it. Too bad, though, that the IPCC flunkies are so corrupt and dishonest.

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: “We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

“Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree — there was no evidence of ’sinking.’ So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

“Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose.”

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray’s alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”

When will you guys realize that it’s all a pack of lies to con governments into regulating your disposable income so that it goes straight into the pockets of swindlers like Gore?

“Whether the climate will warm is far from certain; that it will change is
unquestionable. The weather has changed in the past and will no doubt continue
to vary in the future. Human activity is likely to play only a small and
uncertain role in climate change. The burning of fossil fuel may generate an
enhanced greenhouse effect or the release into the atmosphere of particulates
may cause cooling. It may also be simply hubris to believe that Homo
Sapiens can affect temperatures, rainfall and winds.”

scientific debate on the questions of climate change?  He’s basically saying that “it might mean something, it might not.”  Here’s another diligent application of the scientific method, from the same paper:

According to Nicolas Cheetham, in the second half of the thirteenth century warfare in Greece and the necessity of keeping a large military establishment
under arms reduced its previous prosperity. War does exact a high toll on
economies, but it seems extraordinarily coincidental that economic troubles
occurred at the time Europe was experiencing a deteriorating climate. In 1268,
the King of Naples, in gratitude for military service send wheat, barley and
cattle to the Peloponnese.  Was
this needed because of crop failures solely due to military disruptions?
Although not necessarily weather related, in 1275 Geoffroy de Briel, a major
figure in medieval Greece, died during a military campaign of dysentery, a
disease often exacerbated by cold wet conditions.

Do you really want to hold this stuff up as scientific argument?