Comments on: WSJ columnist rejects climate criticism http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/03/02/wsj-columnist-rejects-climate-criticism/ Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/03/02/wsj-columnist-rejects-climate-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-338646 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:07:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=12144#comment-338646 Investment, investment, investment…. This principle is lacking in our nation when it comes to education, manufacturing, sustainable resource development, science and research. We have no problem however investing in a failed financial system, and Empire. We put our leaders in charge. According to Locke, Jefferson and the Constitution we can remove them.

]]>
By: Ginger Dennis http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/03/02/wsj-columnist-rejects-climate-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-338639 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:55:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=12144#comment-338639 People once believed the Earth is flat,too – but the cult followers proved them wrong.

Using many words, Mr. Jenkins says very little. He did say, however, that he would hate to impose large, costly adjustments to human society (the global economy)based on computer models…did he mean like the “financial instruments” used by Wall Street, the hedge funds and the banking industry that have caused a global financial and economic collapse?

How could 7 billion breeding, CO2-exhaling humans possibly have an effect on the climate? Mr. Jenkins represents those interests in America that don’t want to make any sacrifices. This is another spinjob geared toward the emotional, short-term memory crowd. How dare anyone suggest that we curb our gluttonous ways! Non-renewable resources like air, water, and the rest of the biosphere are ours to exploit and deplete – just ask LovingMySUV. This carbon dioxide business just doesn’t gel with neo-classical economic theory.

The last time CO2 levels were this high there were no humans on earth. With the current birth rate there will likely be 12 billion people on this planet by 2050. That requires basic math skills to calculate that drastic CO2 cuts must be made…but alas – Americans are suffering from a loss in Math and Science skills.

Not to worry – maybe that asteroid that missed Earth by 41,000 miles this morning will get us on one of it’s next orbits.

]]>
By: EcoLA http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/03/02/wsj-columnist-rejects-climate-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-338635 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:49:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=12144#comment-338635 Leave aside, for just a moment, the whole debate over CO2.

Now consider, the OTHER impacts of burning coal and oil: air pollution, oil spills and spills of coal waste.

Air pollution from fossil fuels — from coal-fired power plants to dirty cars and trucks — is linked to thousands of premature deaths from heart disease and cancer, not to mention other health impacts such as asthma, birth defects, and respiratory problems.

Now add in the problem of energy security for oil: The US sends hundreds of billions of dollars abroad, a portion of which go to hostile regimes, and the price volatility of oil and natural gas put as at the mercy of foreign nations.

Looking only at these impacts, should we move as quickly as is possible to cleaner sources of energy?

The fact is that the clime “skeptics” are almost all funded by big oil or propelled by narrow-minded ideologies.

If you look at the security and health impacts of fossil fuels alone, you would have to be an idiot to want to continue to power society by burning carbon.

]]>
By: LovingMySUV http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/03/02/wsj-columnist-rejects-climate-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-338616 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:06:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=12144#comment-338616 Mr. Jones,

I have no intention to radically alter my life based on “proxy data”. Lobotomies once had the blessing of the same group of learned folks.

“Science” is the most dangerous cult of all. What else would you call something capable of producing followers so rock-headed that they stand in a foot of snow crying about a “warming trend”?

]]>
By: Patrick Jones http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/03/02/wsj-columnist-rejects-climate-criticism/comment-page-1/#comment-338614 Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:15:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=12144#comment-338614 Mr Jenkins,

You ask,
“How much more useful it would be if climate scientists could say (for instance) that the warming experienced in the 20th century coincided in systematic fashion with rising man-made CO2 levels and is unprecedented in the behavior of earth’s climate.”

This has been said and proven. There is no question about the statistics – CO2 levels have increased to an unprecedented level in mankind’s history during the past century and global temperatures have followed that same upward trend. There are large amounts of historical and proxy data available which shows the variability of our climate over the past 600,000 years and the matching variations in CO2 levels – only once in that time have CO2 levels approached 300 ppm whilst global temperatures were never as high as they are today.
I suggest you get hold of a copy of Dr Ian Stewart’s documentary called “The Climate Wars”, produced by the BBC. In this 3 part documentary he shows beyond any doubt how CO2 is aiding in the increase of global warming.

]]>