Mark wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:08 PM:
" How did this guy get his own column? Who does he know? "
Climate Guy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:08 PM:
" You should be sure to check Dr. Singer's funding sources. He has worked as a consultant for oil companies and they have also offered financial support for several boards that he sits on. In short, his writings clearly suffer from bias. He is emeritus? Why aren't active climatologists denying the importance of global warming? Wise up folks! Global warming is real and we should prepare for the consequences. "
Michael S wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:41 PM:
" The biggest problem with Dr. Singer's 1,500 year cycle, a cycle which has been readily acknowledged by the scientific community, is that it's about 600 years off schedule. A summary of Dr. Singer's arguments can be found at the URL below.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html
Note the points at which temperature rises cross the zero threshold in Figure 1 at around 1000 and again at around 1900. It doesn't take a math degree to see that the 900 difference doesn't equate to the 1,500 year cycle favored by Singer. "
1st Amendment wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:20 PM:
" This should be my last comment for a while. I'm sick of the SI giving platforms to people who speak half truths on such an important issue. I've been reading scientific literature since the late 80s on climate change. Does the climate go in cycles? You bet! Does that mean man made climate change is a hoax? Only if you're dumb or have an agenda to push. Mr. Brigham ignores the fact that the electric car was both economically feasible and close to reality when it was killed by big oil and the automotive industry. He ignores the fact that Carter started an expansive alternative energy program that was killed by Reagan and kept down by ....Big oil. The truth is, nothing will change until we wrest control of our democracy away from big corporations. As for 'things have never been better,' get real! Tell you what, if you have kids Mr. Brigham, go catch some fish from crab orchard and feed them to your kids, ahhh why not? Whats a little mercury? Oh and how are those polar bears gonna make it with no ice bergs? Oh, and why do we hear almost everyday in the news how our drinking water is contaminated with drugs and pollution? How our fish are not safe to eat because of pollution? And now the free market...WoW!! Uhhh, i'm sorry can you spell mortgage crisis? That is the DIRECT RESULT of deregulation. Here's a better way to put it, never in the history of time, has an unregulated free market EVER resulted in anything other then most of the wealth in the hands of the few, and most of the population poor with almost NO MIDDLE CLASS. Read a history book sir. 1987 Asian financial crisis?-caused by deregulation. Enron and Worldcom?-caused by deregulation. S & L scandal that mcCain had a hand in?-caused by deregulation. Several depressions in 1800s?-Caused by lack of regulation. Can you over-regulate? Sure, but at this stage, anyone who is still stumping for free markets either 1. has an agenda (help themselves), or 2. is ignorant of history and economics. "
BS Shooter wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:32 AM:
" Of course global warming is NOT 'simply a man-made hoax.' It's a religion, a socio-political movement, as well as a capital venture project. "
Don wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:25 AM:
" Yhank you, Mr. Brigham. I very greatly appreciate your comments. Environmentalists, though very educated, are probably some of the most ignorant people ever "hatched." It is very unfortunate that they so much control over government "
John Middleton wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:23 AM:
" Yes it is a hoax. It has always been, and always will be. "
Joe Duncan wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:26 AM:
" The answer to the question is yes, James, global warming is a man made hoax. The earth has cycled between ice ages and warm spells. We could not affect a change if we wanted to. The various "green" parties were inventions of the Soviets in Europe to keep president Reagan from deploying the Pershing II and cruise missiles. At least then, they did not pretend to be anything but socialists. Here in the states, it is all about the environment. Don't be fooled, their aim is socialism. Because they cannot win at the ballot box, they must create a crisis to get anyone to take them seriously. 40 years ago, these same chicken littles were predicting global cooling. We were heading for a new ice age. Nuclear weapons were going to cause endless winter. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. The big internationalists just want to hinder the United States. As long as we exist, their plan for one world government cannot succeed. "
PROOF PLEASE? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:23 AM:
" "To this end, huge progress has been made in this country in my lifetime of 80-plus years. The air has never been cleaner or the water more pure than today. There are more ducks, geese, deer, freshwater fish, wild turkeys, bald eagles, alligators and, yes, even polar bears than ever before."
PROOF PLEASE? "
Brad Arnold wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:46 AM:
" Cutting emissions is ridiculous, because the CO2 will soon be used as fuel, and we can remove the CO2 from the air profitably. Sound like science fiction? Try science fact:
"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What’s this fourth-generation fuel he’s talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation.
The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter."
– "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com
Naturally evolved organisms already exist that eat CO2 and excrete fuel, but the limiting factor is getting enough CO2 from the air. Air is much less than 1% CO2 now. The efficiency can be improved using genetic engineering, and a suicide gene added to assure the GMO couldn’t live outside a lab.
Or,
Expensively cutting our emissions fast and drastically is ridiculous, because sulfate particles can be injected into the upper atmosphere, reducing the amount of solar radiation that strikes the Earth:
"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."
–"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"
The total cost would be around 10 billion dollars a year, and using engineered particles could lower the cost 90%!
Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations requires a 60-80% cut in CO2 emissions worldwide, a wildly expensive prescription. Ironically, CO2 in the air could be an asset. Besides, there is a very inexpensive alternative mitigation strategy.
It is an unfeasible strategy to cut world-wide emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming are avoided.
Besides, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters as it warms, not only significantly reducing the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air, but dramatically increasing the amount of natural greenhouse gas emissions that go into the air, overwhelming any cuts we make.
Now, I’ll add another reason: it is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous to make expensive emission cuts to remove a potential asset from the air.
Brad Arnold
www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod "