Climate Change

Draft Climate Change Agreement Released

|

copenhagen logo

As environment mnisters gather at the Copenhagen climate change conference, a draft agreement outlining broad goals for cutting global greenhouse emission was issued by the chair of Long Term Cooperative Action Group. As the New York Times reports the draft proposal calls

…for 2020 emission cuts from all wealthy nations on the order of between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels, with a target of keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels.

The Times also reports:

That is a target that pushes developed countries further than most have been willing to go. It also makes no mention of when emerging countries with fast-rising emissions like China and India will need to peak their greenhouse gas output and begin cutting.

U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern dismissed the possibility of any new agreement that does not also require China, India and other fast-developing countries to make deep cuts.

"You can't even have that discussion if the major developing countries aren't taking a real role," Stern said. "This structure is kind of a structure that reflects old think, and we can't get the problem solved that way. We don't want to start a negotiation on that basis. This is very much driven by the environmental imperative."

Developing countries also criticized the plan. Poor countries expect billions of dollars—some have argued as much as $200 billion annually—from the industrialized world to protect themselves from impending natural disasters and to help move away from fossil fuels themselves. It is one of the hot-button issues for vulnerable nations, but the text only leaves a blank spot to be filled in with details later.

Go here to read the complete draft proposal.

Advertisement

NEXT: As Congress Trudges Deep Through The Night To Enact Bad Health Care Reform...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh wow, you hit that nail right on da head!

    RT
    http://www.online-privacy.th.tc

  2. Oh wow, you hit that nail right on da head!

    RT
    http://www.online-privacy.th.tc

  3. Screw the planet! Save the Free Market!

    1. Screw the free market! Kill ManBearPig, cerealy!

    2. Yeah! Freedumb sucks!

      1. Super duper sucks, cerealy!

        1. Freedom is slavery!

  4. with a target of keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels.

    And what is the baseline of this accurate (2 degrees Celcius) measurement from? “Preindustrial” means “pre-thermometer” so any temperature measurement will be some form of WAG.

    And what date is “preindustrial”? 1500 AD? 1500 BC? If they want to use 15,000 BC then we’re royally fucked.

    … Hobbit

  5. Just stop it, Hobbit. The science is settled, and the scientists say 2 degrees warming will be what we get if we make between 25% and 40% emmission cuts. Now don’t annoy them further, they have their work to do.

    1. Yeah, think about the average, what use have they for you?

    2. On the other hand, if we detonate the entirety of America’s nuclear arsenal, there will be thirty-two degrees cooling .

  6. I’m going to miss hamburgers.

    1. I’m going to miss civilization.

    2. Oh, hamburgers!

    3. I live in Texas.

      I’m going to miss air conditioning.

      1. I live in Arizona. I think I’m going to miss AC more than you… and cars… and steak… and hamburgers… and breathing and (ect. to infinity)…

  7. If I buy Reason gear now, do I become pretty but sullen?

    1. That’s what it did to me.

  8. These people are horrifically naive children. Do any of them have any idea what kind of economic hit the industrialized world would have to take to reduce our CO2 output by 25%? 86% of our energy comes from fossil fuels!

    The only way to do that would be to build at least 100, 1 gigwatt nuclear plants in less than 10 years. Each plant would cost 4 billion dollars and, oh yeah, we’ve lost the industrial capacity to actually build those plants. Neither do we have the industrial capacity to crank out that much wind and solar even if we could get them to actually work reliably.

    Do any of these children understand how many people in the developing world will die if we throttle back the world economy that much? All the life saving gains in the standard of living we have accomplished in the last 20 years in the 3rd world have been accompanied by increased energy consumption.

    We all should hope catastrophic anthrogenic global warming is occurring because otherwise we are going to kill hundreds of millions of people for no good reason.

    1. Of course they realize exactly the sort of economic hit this would mean. This agenda has been pushed by neo-Malthusians, misanthropes, and Luddites. If they could legislate human extinction, they would. But this is pretty close, so they’ll settle for it. These are the same folks, after all, who would rather millions of poor kids die horrible deaths from malaria than maybe sacrifice some birds by using DDT.

      If they don’t fall into the self-loathing human category, then they fall into the communist (or, umm, “Progressive”) camp and they want to redistribute all the wealth from the greedy industrialized nations to the altruistic poor nations. Of course, naive souls that they are, they don’t realize that you could redistribute all the wealth in the world and give everyone an equal amount of money and within a year the same folks who had the money before will get it back, and the poor folks will be poor again. I mean we’ve been throwing billions at developing nations for decades and very few of them ever develop. And the ones that have just so happened to have civilizations that stretch back thousands of years. Go figure.

      So pick your poison: naive social engineering or malevolent genocide. Either way every last person involved in this process is a lunatic.

      Now excuse me while I go exhale and fart as much as I please before they slap on a tax on my personal emissions.

      1. Well-said.

        Now, read the pussy-boy response below from Chad. Note the smug emissions – and I don’t mean from his precious Prius.

        1. Al Gore and his ilk jack off thinking of all the poor people they are killing.

          They get off on it.

          1. Gore doesn’t have to jack off. He’s got Tipper. Rrrrrrr!

          2. You heretics just don’t understand how super duper awesome The Gore is. Excelsior!

            1. Excelsior? More like seltzer, I think – mostly watery gas.

      2. Actually communism has evolved from a utopian materialism to misanthropic anti-materialism.

        Having observed the abject failure of communism to deliver material prosperity to the masses, communists have joined environ-mentals in their objection to capitalism’s superiority in delivering material prosperity. Material prosperity – especially when enjoyed by the proletariat – is now considered evidence of the evil of capitalism.

        In other words, the universal poverty achieved by communism isn’t a bug — it’s a feature!

        1. And at least the environmentalists are becoming more honest now: http://www.spiked-online.com/i…..icle/2055/

          Just like Hamas and Hezbollah: “we love death as the filthy Kaffir (TM) loves life”. No more nonsense about saving seal-killing polar bears; they’re just nihilists and have no qualms about admitting it.

          Let’s just hope people start taking them super cereal and stop making excuses for them like they do for Hamas (they don’t really love death; they just blew up that bus full of children because someone tuk er jouuubs!)

      3. I’ve found that, in general, it’s best to stay away from statements like, “anyone involved in this (gigantic process, organization, etc.) is a moron,” since they almost certainly indicate that you’re generalizing ridiculously.

        If you don’t think that climate change (and other problems associated with emissions, like changes in the composition of the ocean) is happening, then you’re ignoring a huge amount of evidence. Same for the idea that it is caused largely by humans. Same for the conclusion that there will be drastic consequences.

        I really wish we lived in a world in which these kinds of regulations were unnecessary, but we don’t, sadly. So we have to do something about it.

        This childish nonsense about how they want to kill everyone is obviously false and completely idiotic.

        1. If you don’t think that climate change (and other problems associated with emissions, like changes in the composition of the ocean) is happening, then you’re ignoring a huge amount of evidence. Same for the idea that it is caused largely by humans. Same for the conclusion that there will be drastic consequences.
          What drastic consequences?

          Like all life on Earth being destroyed, the oceans boiling away?

          1. “Like all life on Earth being destroyed, the oceans boiling away?”

            Nope, that will happen in about a billion years unless we can somehow survive that long and come up with the technology to stop it.

            No, I think George Carlin was basically right when we said “the planet will be /fine/….the /people/ are fucked.” Increases in natural disasters (at least in some areas), changes in agricultural yields, changes in water supply, etc. Plus the loss of a lot of biodiversity, which I regard (along with many others, I imagine) as intrinsically valuable. Coral reefs and whales, for example, are amazing but threatened. It’s not like it would be 2012 (the movie, obviously nothing is actually going to happen in 2012), but that doesn’t mean action isn’t appropriate.

            1. Nope, that will happen in about a billion years unless we can somehow survive that long and come up with the technology to stop it.

              James Hansen disagrees with you.

              Plus the loss of a lot of biodiversity, which I regard (along with many others, I imagine) as intrinsically valuable.

              Loss of biodiversity?

              Dude, the Earth was warmer than today when it had maximum biodiversity.

    2. What kind of “hit” would the economy take? None.

      I emit well under half what the average American does, using three simple techniques…two of which SAVE me money and one of which is a wash.

      1: I live in an apartment close to my work (in the suburbs), despite being able to buy a house if I wanted to.

      2: I drive a Prius

      3: I don’t eat much meat.

      #1 and #3 save me money, the Prius will be a wash in the worst case, and will save me money if gas prices go up significantly in the next decade.

      So how exactly was the economy “ruined” by these changes? It wasn’t. You, like most economic conservatives, simply conflate economic activity with value.

      If the American economy was a cartoon character, it would be Homer Simpson…stupid and growing fatter every day.

      1. So how exactly was the economy “ruined” by these changes? It wasn’t. You, like most economic conservatives, simply conflate economic activity with value.

        Value is a judgement, which you have no place making for other people.

        Personal utility is increased by voluntary economic activities, cet.par. Exactly what part of that enrages you?

        1. “Personal utility” and “voluntary economic activities” piss off liberals like Chad. They hate the free market, they hate personal autonomy, and only view liberty through their narrow filters.

          1. You are really funny. It is libertarians who view liberty through “narrow filters”. Particularly, you filter out all positive forms of freedom to avoid any conflict in your pure ideology.

            Here in the real world, the rest of us note that there are many kinds of “freedom” that can be in conflict with one another, and it is incumbent on society to weigh these in the balance.

            Your freedom to travel about the country, for example, is important. Your freedom to do so in an earth-raping gas-guzzling monstrosity that dumps all sorts of costs on the environment, neighboring landowners, and fellow drivers, however, is not so imporant. Their right to clean air, quiet neighborhoods, and not being squished by an oversize vehicle trump your petty rights to be wasteful like your hero Homer.

            1. STEVE SMITH RAPE EARTH, BUT EARTH LIKE IT! WHAT STEVE DO? CONFLICTED!

              1. Note that Chad assumes everyone right-of-center drives a Hummer… but he isn’t an elitist.

                1. No, but most of the rest of them drive something like a Camry or a Corolla, which over the lifespan of a car costs about as much as a Prius, and doesn’t get them anywhere any faster…yet cause twice the pollution.

                  1. My Toyota Paseo gets “only” about 27 MPG on average.

                    Not good enough for you, I’m sure, but it’s what I can afford.

            2. So, it’s okay to be able to drive, but not in a manner of our own choosing. Got it.

              BTW, it’s your precious fucking Obama who is using the term “negative rights” in a NEGATIVE manner. There is no such thing as “positive rights” – government is not supposed to do things FOR us, it’s supposed to prevent things from happening TO us.

              But in your world, government = God.

              1. Oh, I’ll let you choose. If you want to rape the planet, though, your pocketbook will be raped in return.

                1. STEVE SMITH RAPE PLANET, POCKETBOOK, AND CHOAD ALL AT ONCE

                2. Way to assume – and use your usual wealth-envy tactics. Par for the liberal course.

                  BTW, if you think ANY freedom is “small and worthless”, then you have some serious fucking problems.

                  It is interesting, though, that you see me as a freeloader when I take zero dollars in welfare. Coming from someone like yourself – who sees it as a positive to get MORE people on the government/welfare dependency dole – that’s quite a contradiction, to chastise someone for “what the government gives” me – when I didn’t ASK for, nor TAKE, what it hands out.

                  1. I guess you have some very serious fucking problems, because you write-off countless positive freedoms completely.

                    Given that you have whined many times that you are poor, you are clearly collecting welfare. You do not pay enough taxes to cover the roads you use, your childrens’ schools, or the Medicare and Social Security that you will receive, or any of the other countless services the government provides you.

                    If you ain’t paying $8000/year for each person in your family, you are a freeloader.

                    1. No food stamps, no welfare “entitlements”, nothing like that. I work hard, I clip coupons, I do without things.

                      But it’s nice to see how much you actually “care” about the poor.

                    2. You do not pay enough taxes to cover the roads you use,

                      But we all pay for goods and services which businesses run which do pay for the roads. And if the government didn’t build those roads those businesses would.

                      And they would do a better job of it.

                3. It’s not up to you to “let” me choose, Chad. Thank God you’re not an elected official, with that kind of mindset.

                  You want higher energy prices for everyone – poor people included – and higher taxes for everyone, which will hurt the poor you pretend to care about.

                  All in the name of your god, AGW.

                  1. Poor people do not pay enough taxes (no one does). Yes, they could suck up a carbon tax, though in political reality, we will have to give some sort of rebate.

                    1. Why take money away from people, then give some of it back?

                    2. Because people, who like my brother and his family, live close to work and in a modest dwelling would come out ahead, while monster-truck-driving yahooos would be forced to pay for the privledge.

                4. Oh, I’ll let you choose. If you want to rape the planet, though, your pocketbook will be raped in return.

                  By whom?

                  You ?

            3. Chad, “positive forms of freedom”??? Confusing “positive liberty” with “liberty” is like confusing “electric chair” with “chair” 😉

              1. Worst…threaded comments…ever.

      2. Choad, you emit so much gaseous bullshit that you’ll be the first person imprisoned under new protocols.

        And it’s cute that you don’t think of Tony as “meat”.

      3. “If the American economy was a cartoon character, it would be Homer Simpson…stupid and growing fatter every day.”

        But don’t ever call us “elitists”, eh, Chad?

        1. Actually, I think it is libertarians who are elitist. I prefer knocking the “elite” down a peg or three, because half of what made them “elite” in the first place was dumb luck and who-their-daddy-knew.

          1. We don’t go around proclaiming use of gov’t power to tell people how to live, Chad.

            And FYI, you should consider that a lot of us don’t have the “who-their-daddy-knew” advantage most liberals have. So go fuck yourself, whiny prick.

            1. My daddy used his ill-gotten fortune to buy elections for myself and my brothers.

              1. MY daddy was a wealthy politician, which helped pave the way for me to have a cushy, non-private-sector lifestyle.

                1. My (oppressive white male) husband and I are worth millions of dollars, yet we use non-union farm labor to pick grapes from our vineyards.

                  1. Don’t forget your famous, politically-connected father, Mistress.

            2. You are constantly proclaiming that we must abide some religious theory of yours that prevents common-sense organization of society. Your idea of how we should live is both ludicrous and dangerous.

              Liberals and conservatives are about equally spread across the income distribution spectrum. I have never seen any data on something such as economic mobility vs parent’s political persuasion. Do you have some?

              1. “You are constantly proclaiming that we must abide some religious theory of yours that prevents common-sense organization of society. Your idea of how we should live is both ludicrous and dangerous.”

                Funny, your side – and the far-right – want nothing like “common-sense organization of society”… they want to CONTROL it, 24/7. They just don’t have the guts to eviscerate the Constitution in order to accomplish their goals of private-behavior domination.

                And it’s YOUR idea of how we should live that is ludicrous and dangerous. But you’re so far up the ass of the progressive mindset, you don’t realize those dangers.

                1. No, LG, we do not want to control your life 24/7. I simply want to implement what works, and yes, that means sometimes taxing your pathetic heinie and sometimes forbidding you from hurting yourself or others, forcing you to pitch in, or fining you when you are naughty. Get over it and grow up.

                  1. Who are you to forbid self-harm?

                    Who are you to proscribe charity or voluntary actions?

                    Who are you to take more in taxes when it’s hard enough to make ends meet as it is?

                    You contradicted the first line in your post with the REST of your post, and you don’t even realize it.

                    If you gave half a shit about liberty, you wouldn’t be a liberal.

                    1. If it were just me, you would have a point.

                      Again, your petty, stupid, childish idea of “liberty” implies that a poor lone man starving on an island is more “free” than a Wall Street tycoon. This is self-evidently wrong, and therefore indicates that your entire concept of freedom is also wrong.

                      In short, positive freedoms matter, and can be worth sacrificing negative freedoms for. In your petty worldview, positive freedoms cannot
                      exist, and therefore you see me as attacking freedoms only. From my perspective, and that of most people, I am simply trading small worthless freedoms for much larger ones.

                    2. The way Obama sneerily says “negative liberties” makes me think he – and you – have a lot of disdain for said negative liberties.

                      That term means government may NOT do things, in shorthand. Obama – and you – want government TO do things… everything, in fact. Fuck the private sector, we should all be public employees AND public-employee-union members.

                      Maybe we should wear the same clothing, while we’re at it. Brown is easy to keep clean…

                    3. And btw, if you are having a “hard time making ends meet”, you probably aren’t paying diddly squat for taxes anyway. Certainly nowhere near enough to cover what the government gives you in return, so quit whining, freeloader!

                    4. Nice assumptions, Chad. IF I made a lot of money, you’d want gov’t to take over half of it, or more; if I’m poor, I’m a freeloader.

                      Which is it, cocksucker? One, or both?

                  2. Will you have the trains running on time?

                    1. Everyone else does. I say we model the Japanese. They got it right. In about two years of being there and riding the trains daily, I was late exactly once (due to a suicide on the track…it’s amazing how fast they cleaned it up).

                    2. Ok, this was pretty well played

                    3. It’s amazing how many suicides the Japanese have in their wonderfully organized society.

          2. Choad, you couldn’t knock down a bowling pin with a frozen turkey. But it’s good to know how delusional you are. It keeps things in perspective.

          3. because half of what made them “elite” in the first place was dumb luck and who-their-daddy-knew.

            How would government choosing who succeeds and who does not be any better?

            I know one thing about it would be worse. If you gain it half by luck and who your daddy knows in the private sector you can loose it…if government gives it to you by luck and daddy you will always have it no matter how incompetent you are.

      4. Good for you, Chad.

        Do what you want.

        I just don’t want a fascist gang to steal my money and order me to live in an apartment and eat tofu … which is, in effect, what the envir-mentals are campaigning for.

        BTW, if they have their way, you won’t be driving your Prius for long. 40% is a big number and there are emissions far more important than your personal transportation.

        1. I’ll be driving it for ~10 years, when I switch to something even more efficient. I will be well ahead of the curve then as well.

          Actually, I prefer public transportation and have used it about half of my adult life. Unfortunately, the woefully-inadequate public transportation system in this area makes it impracticle.

          1. But you’re not an elitist snob who looks down his nose at those who are poor or don’t drive pussy Prius-style cars. Nope.

            1. LG, my family is of quite modest means, and I grew up in a rural part of poorest county in my state. I know poverty damned well, and I am surrounded by it every time I go home.

              Could folks like my brother and his family pay an extra ~20% for energy? Yep. Even without a rebate, which would almost certainly happen.

              1. There’s no NEED to pay more – which would affect more than just home utility bills, BTW… food prices, gas prices for those cars you hate so much… but anything for your fallacious AGW, right?

                1. Since energy is about ~8% of GDP, a ~25% price increase would cost ~2% of GPD….right in line with the estimates of the cost of solving this problem.

                  TWO BLEEPING PERCENT.

                  That’s ONE YEAR of “growth”. Surely, we can slow down by ONE YEAR over the next century and get it right!

                  1. It’s just another excuse to raise taxes and associated costs, AND control the populace.

                    You really think it’s that easy, don’t you?

          2. Actually, you won’t be ahead of the curve by then. A 2010 Mazda3 gets 25 mpg/city and 33 mpg/highway. With comparable trim similar on a 2010 Prius, it will take you 5-10 years to break even depending on how many miles you drive each year.

            If you really wanted to be ahead of the curve, you’d have been better off with a Toyota Yaris or Camry.

            Better luck next time!

      5. Chad,

        I want to thank you very sincerely for being a textbook example of childish naivet? I am talking about.

        Honestly, do you really believe that anything you’ve listed even if everyone in America lived as you do, would have any significant impact on global warming? Oh, mercy what a complete an utter narcissistic child! Your just not that important Chad.

        Let me clue you in. The economy is not about money. The economy is about using energy to turn dirt into useful things. We have clean water because we use energy to pump, purify and distribute the water. The same for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, transportation, communication etc.

        It is a violation of the laws of physics to do the same or more work with less energy. Using less energy means doing less physical work which means less control over our environment which means we’re poorer and more people die.

        Let me guess, you work in some kind of informational field, public relations, the law, “public interest” etc. You don’t work in say a factory that uses great gobs of electricity. However, the people who buy whatever it is that you do work in a factory or something similar. What do you think is going to happen to their jobs when electricity cost through the roof and supplies are constrained. They’re not going to have the money to buy whatever it is that you sell. Our economy is ultimately about making things and that takes energy.

        More importantly, have you ever given any thought to all the billions in the world that don’t already consume as much energy as you do? Are you just going to write them off? Don’t you think they deserve clean drinking water and functioning sewage system? Well, that take cement and check this out:

        Cement is made by heating limestone (calcium carbonate), with small quantities of other materials (such as clay) to 1450?C in a kiln, in a process known as calcination, whereby a molecule of carbon dioxide is liberated from the calcium carbonate to form calcium oxide, or lime, which is then blended with the other materials that have been included in the mix . The resulting hard substance, called ‘clinker’, is then ground with a small amount of gypsum into a powder to make ‘Ordinary Portland Cement’, the most commonly used type of cement (often referred to as OPC).

        That’s a lot of CO2 to produce just one of the most common and necessary materials that mean the differences between casually giving your baby girl a clean cup of water verses watching helplessly as she shits herself to death from waterborne dysentery.

        Let me tell you Chad, while you’re living your smug little life, a lot of people are going to suffering and dying as we slam down energy use and slam down life saving technology based on a handful of computer projections.

        And you know what Chad, it will hurt you eventually because I know, I just know, that you don’t do vital work. You do something interesting or entertaining but something people can easily do without if times are tight. You do something that people didn’t do 50 years ago when we used a lot less energy. Guess what, when we go back to a world with 25% less energy, we’ll be going back to a world that needs 25% less luxuries as well. A lot of us today work jobs that people would not have devoted the resources to even a few decades ago.

        So enjoy it while you can because I’m going to sneak into you house tonight, kidnap you and maroon in a 3rd world slum where you can live on two dollars a day while lecturing everyone around you that you don’t need energy.

        You’re just an ignorant child hammering on the life-support system of spaceship earth.

        1. Honestly, do you really believe that anything you’ve listed even if everyone in America lived as you do, would have any significant impact on global warming?

          If every American lived like me, world emissions would drop by an eighth at least. Actually, they would drop by more, because if EVERYONE lived like me, my emissions (and theirs too) would drop in a cyclic feedback. For example, parking lots would be smaller and buildings closer together, reducing the distance we would need to drive, or eliminating the need altogether. Most of my remaining emissions are a result of the structure of our infrastructure and society, and cannot be eliminated without absurd sacrifice on my part or a relatively modest change in the system itself. Being green isn’t hard. Being green alone is.

          It is a violation of the laws of physics to do the same or more work with less energy. Using less energy means doing less physical work which means less control over our environment which means we’re poorer and more people die.

          You are confusing (deliberately, probably) the scientific meaning of “work” and the colloquial. We can often do more “work” with less “work” if we are smart about it.

          Let me guess, you work in some kind of informational field, public relations, the law, “public interest” etc. You don’t work in say a factory that uses great gobs of electricity

          I am a chemist, and yes, our factories use great gobs of electricity and fossil fuels…all of which could come from renewable sources if the markets were structured so that the additional costs could be absorbed.

          More importantly, have you ever given any thought to all the billions in the world that don’t already consume as much energy as you do? Are you just going to write them off? Don’t you think they deserve clean drinking water and functioning sewage system? Well, that take cement and check this out:

          There is no reason they can’t do it the right way the first time, and no reason we can’t start getting it right starting yesterday.

          That’s a lot of CO2 to produce just one of the most common and necessary materials that mean the differences between casually giving your baby girl a clean cup of water verses watching helplessly as she shits herself to death from waterborne dysentery.

          There IS a lot of CO2 produced. There need not be. Do some homework on green cement alternatives. There are tons of ideas out there.

          Your entire argument boils down to one false premise: that being green means lowering one’s lifestyle. It does not. It means getting your energy from clean sources, and not wasting it.
          The latter saves you money, and the former costs very little upfront and nothing once you factor in the benefits of a cleaner and more stable environment.

          1. Notice how proud Chad is of himself… and yet, he is NOT an elitist snob.

            1. “If every American lived like me”

              Typical liberal speak.. if only everyone did exactly what I want… of course hes not an elitist

          2. If every American lived like me, world emissions would drop by an eighth at least. Actually, they would drop by more, because if EVERYONE lived like me, my emissions (and theirs too) would drop in a cyclic feedback.

            Jebus fucking christ. What elitist, smug, dripping condescension, all wrapped up in an holier-than-thou “do as your told by your masters” authoritarian package. Know your place and no one will get hurt, eh?

            Gosh, if only EVERYONE were like you, living like a celibate monk (if only you would take a vow of silence) we could buy the world a Coke, kumbaya, kumbaya.

            But, since EVERYONE isn’t just like you, you have no problem forcing them to be, whether it suits their needs or not. “Sorry kids, your mom and I were hoping to be able to send you to college, but we just got through paying off our loan for *last* year’s carbon tax. You just keep digging holes and filling them back up as ObamaCorp taught you to do. Now, get back into your sleeping cell. We’re still on the waiting list for a 2-room apartment and I don’t want to risk that with any kind of troublesome dissent.”

            At least now we know how Soylent Green really gets started.

            1. Ditch the McMansion and your three SUVs, and paying for your kids education is not a problem.

          3. Chad’s a chemist? Don’t chemists make pretty good change? Chad’s dad, from the poorest county in his state, must have had some connections to get Chad such a job… or did Chad just try/work harder than some? pay attention more than some? not give up like some?

            Seems Chad has not learned from his success that you can come from a modest background in the “poorest county in the state” and make something of yourself…

            Something tells me Chad is completely ignoring what hard work can do for someone and is clinging to ideology that made his county the poorest in the state…

            Kinda like a bug… keeps seeing his bug-friends go into the zapper… “bzzt” one dead… “bzzt” two dead… about 70 dead and the dumbass goes ahead and tries it himself…

            1. My father worked like a dog six and a half days a week with a long commute. I didn’t spend much time with him as a kid, and was mostly raised by my grandparents, who didn’t even finish high school. My father was the first in his family to graduate from college, and I was the second. I paid my own way nearly entirely with scholarships, savings, and odd jobs. My parents contributed about $1000 total for my education.

              Did I “work harder” than most? Yes, but not wildly so. But most of my success is merely an artifact of my ability to play with numbers, which was a talent I was born with.

      6. Chad apparently has no idea how much energy it takes to manufacture a Prius. Significantly more than a Hummer.

        Obviously, a Hummer is going to use way more energy during its operational lifetime, but a Prius is probably going to cause just as much pollution in total as a mid-sized gas-only car.

        1. In other words, if you’re concerned about how much pollution your vehicle is going to cause, you should

          (a) buy a compact gas-only car, which uses not much energy to produce;

          (b) better yet, buy a USED car, which costs no energy to produce, since it already exists;

          (c) oppose government policies such as cash for clunkers which encourage people to destroy existing vehicles in favor of spending energy making new ones.

        2. http://reliableanswers.com/gen…..hummer.asp

          http://www.pacinst.org/topics/….._prius.pdf

          When that study was first published here on H&R it took about 5 comments for the locals to show it to be nothing but silliness.

          Both GM and Toyota have also published statements refuting the basic claims.

          1. You’re referring to the study that purported to show that a Hummer uses less energy over its lifetime than a Prius does. Which happens to NOT be what I was arguing, a detail you’d be aware of had you actually read what I posted. I was arguing that an average mid-sized car uses about as much energy, with a compact gas-only car using substantially less.

              1. Actully, I would love to see the evidence. The vast majority of emissions from a car are what it burns, not its manufacture, which is only around 10-15% of the total. A Prius will burn 2/3 of the fuel of a typical compact. Even if a Prius took twice the energy to make, the Prius would still be well ahead. Probably the best estimate of the the manufacturing emissions is the car’s price itself. In this case, a Prius is about 50% more expensive than a compact and 30% more expensive than a similar non-hybrid. So perhaps a compact burns 9 units of fuel and requires one to manufacture, while a Prius burns 6 units and (very generously) requires 2 to build. The Prius still wins.

                1. Have you ever seen a lithium mine chad? Not even taking into account the energy used, that lithium mine that produced the lithium ion battery in your Prius isn’t a pretty sight for an environmentalist.

                  1. Ob-pedantic:

                    prii don’t use lion batteries.

                    1. Right, nickel mines (and mines for the various metals in the hydride alloy) are much more enviro-friendly.

                    2. The question is, do they tow the lion batteries?

                  2. As opposed to a coal mine? An iron mine? A copper mine?

                    They are all ugly. Pray tell, where is your argument that a lithium mine is any uglier?

            1. Tulpa,
              Mia Culpa, I guess.
              That said, I think I agree if you change “mid-size” to “small/compact.” But for a car its size, the Prius will be the greener choice.

              http://www.greencar.com/articl…..alists.php

              1. And to clarify the hedge on the mia culpa…

                Why mention the Hummer if your point was about mid-sized cars?

                Sophistry perhaps?

                Manufacturing costs only matter to the degree the contribute to the vehicles life-time energy usage. Since manufacturing is only around 10% of the vehicle’s lifetime energy usage (even for complex multi-motor hybrids), the figure that matters is operational energy usage. You have to have a HUGELY smaller manufacturing footprint to make up for significantly higher fuel efficiency.

                Simple, small, energy efficient gas-only vehicles will beat a Prius. And some fuel efficient diesels will as well. Fully electric, of course, are the best, but cost is still prohibitive.

                1. If someone is trying to say that an elephant is smaller than a mouse, you might be tempted to mention that an elephant is bigger than a bear. That’s not sophistry.

                  1. Hmmm…

                    I am trying to see how Chad’s claim about the Prius equals “Elephant is smaller than mouse.”

                    That said, your sophistry goes like this…

                    1)Prius uses more energy to make than Hummer (both GM and Toyota disagree).

                    Followed by
                    2)an admission that this is a red-herring since the life-time energy of the Hummer is clearly more.

                    Red-Herrings, of course, are used rhetorically to distract from a weaker claim about to be made in…

                    3) But Prius, the most fuel efficient mid-size, will end up as bad as the other mid-sized cars…because???? (no evidence or logic presented).

                    Prolefeed did much better below, despite the dubious gauge of environmental harm.

                    1. Prius uses more energy to make than Hummer (both GM and Toyota disagree).

                      Not true. They disagreed with the idea that over its lifetime a Hummer uses less energy. But if you have a link to share making your stronger point, feel free.

                    2. http://www.salon.com/mwt/featu…..ablo_cars/

                      * 1986 Mercedes-Benz W126: 114.440 million Btus
                      * Hummer H2: 200.717 million Btus
                      * Toyota Prius: 113.322 million Btus

                    3. (a) buy a compact gas-only car, which uses not much energy to produce;

                      This one is true for a small/compact car.

                      (b) better yet, buy a USED car, which costs no energy to produce, since it already exists;

                      See link above, this one is a dubious claim and depends a lot upon your choice of used car.

                      (c) oppose government policies such as cash for clunkers which encourage people to destroy existing vehicles in favor of spending energy making new ones.

                      Again, it depends on how it is implemented. For big gas guzzlers, the difference will be made up quickly since operating the vehicle is the MAIN environmental impact of any vehicle.

                    4. I should clarify.

                      (a) is true in terms of manufacturing energy, but unless the car also get really good gas milage, the Prius will still beat it. A small efficient diesel would be an environmentally sound choice in many cases.

                    5. hmmm…I see that Salon link didn’t work.

                      From Salon:
                      Monday, Apr 21, 2008 03:53 EDT
                      Ask Pablo
                      Considering the energy used in auto manufacturing, is it better to keep my old car or buy a new hybrid?
                      By Pablo P?ster

                    6. Greencars.za.net runs the numbers for the much smaller H3, and the Prius still beats it in MANUFACTURING energy.

                      The misinformation that Tulpa has swallowed so willingly seems to be one of those impressively robust myths that sticks around because the initial analysis used graphs and charts and numbers and stuff to make a claim. Somehow people never seem to remember the follow up showing the errors if the original claim fits their assumptions or shines a negative light on people they view as being on the other team.

        3. Are you referring to those old studies by consultants who assumed that Hummers would last 20 years and be driven 300,000+, while Prius’s would be driven only 100,000?

          Here is a nice smackdown of that crap.

          http://www.pacinst.org/topics/….._prius.pdf

      7. ‘I emit…’

        Sir, you emit so much bullshit on this site that Indian peasants will have enough fuel to make chapatis for a thousand years.

    3. Shannon,

      http://knol.google.com/k/jeffe…..zlqeo5n/1#

      The financial bottom line: Although the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is significant (about $3.86 trillion in undiscounted 2008 dollars), savings are even greater ($4.68 trillion), returning a net savings of $820 billion over the 22-year life of the plan.

  9. The agreement gives everyone ponies, too, right? I can’t wait to ride my pony through the gumdrop forests.

    1. Not if PETA has anything to say about it…

  10. target of keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels.

    Um, doesn’t the “scientific consensus” (not to be confused with Al Gore’s movie) say if we do nothing, the ‘warming’ we’ll ’cause’ will be a bit less than that anyway?

  11. But New York City will be completely submerged in five years if we don’t act now!

    1. That’s a feature, not a bug.

  12. Where are joe and Tony to extoll the benefits of welfare?

  13. I have read the linked “Draft Text on the Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group” and am having trouble seeing that these people have done anything of any substance beyond the call for emission reductions. The text seems to be mostly boilerplate, bureaucratic BS, and “To be elaborated” — yet another reason this stuff is so dangerous.

  14. We all should hope catastrophic anthrogenic global warming is occurring because otherwise we are going to kill hundreds of millions of people for no good reason.

    I’m not at all sure these people are na?ve. For many of them ridding the world of hundreds of millions of people is a good thing.

    The other possibility, of course, is that we’ll institute all these anti-global-warming policies, they’ll actually have the desired effect, but it’ll turn out the predictions of ten years ago were right and the Earth is actually cooling.

    Life on the rocks, people. Life on the rocks.

    1. Yet some of those same people want free health care, to keep people alive. Quite the conundrum.

      1. No, it’s because we’re spending too much of our GDP on medicine and keeping the elderly alive beyond when nature dictated they should die.

        The cult of death is strong with the health care movement too.

  15. HURR DURR HURR

    REASON HEARTS CAMEL JOCKEYS

    HURR HURR HURRRR DURRRR

    1. That is funny stuff. I see he posted earlier…what a douche.

  16. Nothing to see there. It’s just busy work as far as the U.S. is concerned. And if the others want to do it, what, exactly is stopping them? This conference is a puppet show, a scam.

  17. …for 2020 emission cuts from all wealthy nations on the order of between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels, …

    Like the Kyoto accords, these goals will be ignored by all concerned parties.

    1. But think about the jobs that will be created with this wonderful piece of legislation.

      They will have to hire a bunch of douchebags to measure the carbon emissions, more scientists to compare those measurements against 1990 levels. The poorer countries will be able to put to work all the people that are still alive in the dead body collection business.

      Think of it as a stimulus plan for the world…way to go Barack and friends.

      1. Not friends… minions.

    2. Exactly. Even these people aren’t stupid enough to follow through with their bullshit.

  18. I never thought I would say this, but I miss Bush’s disregard for what other countries think.

    1. That’s one thing I ALWAYS liked about Bush.

      1. Exactly. It was his disregard for what the independents who punched his ticket thought that made him suck.

  19. But I LIKE warmth!

  20. “…target of keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels…” Talk about arrogance. As if the planet’s climate can be controlled like the temperature in a room. What a stupendous racket. It must be admitted that climate change has had an amazing level of utility for a such a wide range of gamers and rent seekers. Well, they can say whatever they like. It’s much, much easier than putting their plans for plundering the pockets of the citizenry into effect.

    1. Good point. The Keynesians thought they could “fine tune the economy”. The greens want to fine tine the climate. They’re both equally stupid.

  21. A pre-but of sorts to where I am sure this discussion will go…

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

    LONDON ? E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data ? but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

    1. Who provided the raw data to the AP? I thought all that was “lost”.

    2. Who provided the raw data to the AP? I thought all that was “lost”.

    3. So, now the AP peer reviews the science?

  22. Like the Associated Press is a disinterested party after decades of fearmongering for the statists.

    1. sage/James Ard,

      Right on cue and keeping to the script…well done.

      1. Neu, you might want to reflect on the irony that you also are…right on cue and keeping with your script. Think about it for a little while. I’ll wait.

        1. Epi,

          I was aware that some would perceive irony and expected to be called out on it.

          Did you read the AP article? It is hardly flattering to the CRU crowd. It calls them to task for their behavior. In fact it reminds me most of Hans Von Storch’s take on the affair.

          http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.c……html#more

          If you want to call that keeping to my script I guess I am fine with that.

          1. I’ll keep to my script, fuckface.

            1. This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.

              I hate you, YouTube.

              1. Warty…good stuff.
                ArtPOG – where ya at? It plays fine for me.

                1. Germany. I occasionally run into this problem overseas.

                  1. Ahhh…I seem to remember reading something about that.

                2. I never figured you for a metalhead, Neu.

                  1. I wouldn’t call myself a metal head, but I appreciate a good shred when I hear one. Latest fave is Kowloon Walled City.

                    1. I would be remiss not to plug these guys also…

                      http://www.dirtcommunion.com/

  23. I still feel like they are going at this wrong. It is true that Brazil, Russian, India, & China need to get on-board as their economies develop, but the targets need to be based on emissions-per-citizen rates that would make sense in terms of population growth. That method, which I believe China and India have supported (or something close to it) puts different kinds of pressures on countries depending upon whether they are over the target currently (e.g., the US, Europe, Japan) or whether they are under it.

    At least that’s my take on it.

    1. Population (and population growth) need to be factored in more heavily…especially when that growth is driven by immigration. It is far easier for Europe or Japan to cut emissions than the US, because their populations are either stagnant or shrinking. Ours would be close to flat if it were not for immigration.

      1. So… why do you fuckers want free health care? Let people die, thus lessening the toll on Mother Earth. Problem solved!

      2. Perhaps you and Lonewacko should join forces.

        1. No,thanks. I was being cheeky, y’know.

          1. I was talking to Chad actually…

            1. My bad. Damned squirrels…

  24. And who from the AP made this “exhaustive review?” I thought all their manpower was being spent going over Palin’s book with a fine tooth comb. Their articles in general, and the ones on climate change in particular, have no credibility AFAIC.

  25. The AP gives us gems like this:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c…..ate06.html

    COPENHAGEN, Denmark ? For 20 years, as this crowded planet grew warmer, nations have gathered annually to try to do something about it. History now brings them to Copenhagen, a chilly northern capital, and to a crossroads.

    Yes, nothing shrill about that piece of wang.

    1. ‘this crowded planet’

      Yes, very subjective. Some parts are crowded (Java), others not at all (Great Basin). Choice is alive as to what you want. Me. I prefer a crowded urban life. More choices there (here).

  26. I never thought I would say this, but I miss Bush’s disregard for what other countries think.

    Not making policy because it will make other countries happy is good. I, too, liked that. But I always felt that Bush paid insufficient attention to the actual foreign policy costs (given that we have foreign entanglements, we need some support from overseas). So I’m torn on this.

    Obama, on the other hand, cares too much. Out behavior should be such to earn respect, but we have no need to suck up in search of being liked.

  27. That AP article Neu Mejican linked to is a disingenuous piece of crap.

    First it completely ignores the leaked code and the harry read me file.

    Second you get statements like

    Frankel saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.'”

    Is hiding inconvenient data that conflicts with the story you want to tell a form of fabricating data? Results are pretty similar.

    IPCC and the “Trick”

    Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case,

    I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

    The emails show that the late 20th century decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that “everyone in the room at IPCC” thought that the Briffa decline was a “problem” and a “potential distraction/detraction”, that this was then the “most important issue” in chapter 2 of the IPCC report and that there was “pressure” on Briffa and other authors to show a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.

    After the Arusha meeting, Briffa hastily re-calculated his reconstruction sending a new version to Mann on Oct 5, 1999 and it was this hastily re-done version that introduced the very severe decline that was hidden in the First Order Draft and Jones WMO Report]

    1. The “hidden” data was “hidden” right here.

      http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/737

      If you are trying to “hide” something, why would you publish it and then cite it? They were simply not including some spurious data on a graph. Big whoopdie doodads.

      In any case, why are you focused on the arcana of a 11 year old graph? The data has been updated countless times since.

  28. Chad,

    Your statements are self refuting

    If you are trying to “hide” something, why would you publish it and then cite it?

    Can’t be squared with

    They were simply not including some spurious data on a graph.

    1. There is nothing contradictory about this at all, and it is done all the time. What matters is transparancy, and anyone reading the papers would know what they did. I seriously doubt you have read one in your life.

      Hell, one of the instruments in my lab has two detectors for different ranges, and does the same kind of blending automatically.

  29. Duracomm,

    I am not sure it is fair to say it “ignores” the leaked code and the harry read me file when it says quite clearly that they did an exhaustive review of the emails.

    1. That’s the sophistry we’ve come to expect from you, NM! Keep up the good work!

    2. Also note that the emails from the database manager complaining about how screwed up the data files were were not mentioned.

  30. Talk about scripts. I haven’t seen a single pro-AGW release that doesn’t use the terms stolen and out of context. And most refer to the opposition as deniers. If their case was so strong they wouldn’t need such regimented talking points.

    1. One of many ways liberal elitists look down their noses at those less worthy than themselves.

      Take Chad, for instance.

    2. James,
      What would be the neutral way to describe how the emails were obtained?

      As for the “denier” term, I find the debate over it a bit disingenuous. I mean “skeptics” don’t say “AGW is a fraud pushed for political reasons.” Skeptics say…”you haven’t proven your case.” What term would you use to distinguish between those with skeptical attitudes and those who are “certain” on the other side? What would the neutral term be to describe those who know in their hearts that AGW is not true?

      1. Leaked is probably a more accurate term. And if denier wasn’t such a loaded term I might refer to myself as one. Until someone shows me a predictive model, there’s nothing to be skeptical about.

        1. “Leaked” seems as loaded as “stolen” to me.

          As for “predictive model”(s): You claim no one has shown you one, which I take to mean that none of the models out there perform well enough for you to consider them “predictive.” While they should be taken with a grain of salt, many of the predictions these models have made over the last couple of decades have agreed with observations within some (admittedly large) margins of error.

          1. [citation needed]

            1. Do your own homework.

              1. If you’re pushing a claim, it’s your responsibility to justify it.

                1. Well, it is typically okay to assume that people who are discussing a topic with you have the basic knowledge base to form an informed opinion.

                  If you don’t, you should get up to speed before weighing in.

                  1. Start, of course, with the IPCC AR4, of course.

                    1. Telling me in general terms your proprietary measure of how M2 predicts a certain amount of inflation is only a fraction of the way to the destination of you providing me with the entire data collection methodology, the analysis performed to create the models, the models themselves, and, if you’re nice, you could give me a computer strong enough to handle the tasks I’ll be throwing at it.
                      I don’t think the climate modelers have gotten anywhere close to that in their trasparency, and your link does nothing to refute that.

                    2. No, the link does not do that.
                      You can find all you need, however, if you are willing to look.

                      I would start here in your search
                      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

  31. Great post! I love your homepage!!

    Common Cents

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    ps. Link Exchange??

  32. Camry vs. Prius:

    The Prius is really only economical in urban driving situations with slow speeds and many stops. In suburban type driving, with more constant and higher speeds, the Camry is more economical. In suburban situations, the batteries in the Prius are just dead weight since the energy stored in them doesn’t last long before the engine is doing all the work. In general, highway driving is more efficient than urban driving.

    1. A base model Prius II is $23000. A comparibly-equipped Camry LE is $21000. I think your analysis is way out-dated. The Camry would get barely half the mileage in the suburbs as my Prius, and burn at least 200 gallons of extra gas a year.

      You do the math.

      Don’t you hate it when saving the planet is cheaper than free? It sure makes inaction hard to justify.

      1. According to those figures, you drive more than 10,000 miles a year. Looks like living close to work hasn’t helped you drive much less than the average person, so dock that one off the list.

        1. I drive around 10000 miles per year, which is 200 gallons of gas in a Prius and 400 in a Camry. It gets extra miles because the Prius is chosen for long trips by my friends, family and I.

          1. Gee Chad, I hope your friends (who apparently can all fit in the back of a Prius, no surprise there) are chipping in for gas. But in that case, you’re not saving money, they are.

            And you DRIVE for long trips? Shouldn’t you be taking more efficient long-distance transportation, such as Amtrak or Greyhound?

            1. Neither are at all relevant to my current location nor the places I am going.

              As I mentioned, I have been a frequent user of public transportation when it has been available, and I prefer using it if it is at all feasible. There have been significant portions of my adult life where I didn’t even have a vehicle, and even longer stretches were I owned one, but did not use it to commute. Unfortunately this is not possible with my current job.

              1. Try riding shanks mare, hot shot – you’ll really save fuel.

  33. Given that you have whined many times that you are poor, you are clearly collecting welfare. You do not pay enough taxes to cover the roads you use, your childrens’ schools, or the Medicare and Social Security that you will receive, or any of the other countless services the government provides you.

    If you ain’t paying $8000/year for each person in your family, you are a freeloader.

    That’s funny, Chad. I really don’t remember asking for Medicare or Social Security.

    1. When you rip up the checks, send half of each one to me as proof.

      1. You first, fuckface.

        Er, Chad.

        Though the two terms are interchangeable…

        1. Why should I? Unlike you, I put in plenty enough to justify any check that I would ever receive.

            1. If you make so much, you should be able to save enough that you don’t need to collect your benefits, right?

              1. You could probably help the poor and the country by not collecting, Chad.

                1. I could, but I prefer to donate directly.

                  1. Couldn’t the guvn’ment do a more effective job than private charities, Chad.
                    Why do I have to fucking remind you of your own talking points.

              2. Yes, I could. I don’t need them, but I have earned them.

                LibertarianGuy, on the other hand, is a freeloader who whines incessantly when you suggest that he contribute 20% of what he takes rather than only 10%.

                1. I think you’re misrepresenting LibertarianGuy’s position. When the tax code changes, it’s not a “suggestion”, but a requirement. I don’t think anyone has a problem with people voluntarily giving more. But I don’t blame anyone for questioning higher taxes in the name of Great Justice.

                2. Go to hell, Chad.

                  I *could* take welfare, food stamps, and other shit I’m not *entitled* to… but I don’t.

                  Fuck off, you smarmy traitor.

              3. Chad is a stupid cocksucker who thinks he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. Self-loathing will do that to a person.

  34. Also, people who don’t have kids may or may not pay taxes for stuff like schools. “Freeloading?”

    1. Since people who don’t have kids must still pay property taxes, they do indeed pay for schools.

      1. Yeah, I was just saying that if they didn’t have kids it wouldn’t matter if they didn’t pay any property tax. They still wouldn’t be freeloading, at least as far as paying for schools was concerned.

        1. Children are an investment in our future. If the childless did not pay property taxes to support the schools, then THEY would be freeloading on our future.
          In other words, when someone else’s kid finds the cure for cancer and they have a tumor the size of Chad’s ego they should really just pass.

  35. I’m thinking we could cut emissions by developing a cost-effective nutrient paste, though.

    1. Soylent Green?

  36. Poor people do not pay enough taxes (no one does)

    I beg your pardon (what the fuck?).

    1. Art, he’s a sockpuppet. He doesn’t make sense, he makes people mad.

      1. I’m glad you’re sure he’s a sock puppet. What if [dramatic pause] he’s not?

        1. If I say he is, well…he is. Feel better now?

  37. Your entire argument boils down to one false premise: that being green means lowering one’s lifestyle. It does not. It means getting your energy from clean sources, and not wasting it.
    The latter saves you money, and the former costs very little upfront and nothing once you factor in the benefits of a cleaner and more stable environment.

    Yeah, but doesn’t this imply that green alternatives will become increasingly supported by the market anyway?

  38. Again, your petty, stupid, childish idea of “liberty” implies that a poor lone man starving on an island is more “free” than a Wall Street tycoon. This is self-evidently wrong, and therefore indicates that your entire concept of freedom is also wrong.

    What the fuck?

  39. Corolla versus Prius (to compare similarly sized cars)

    Prius MSRP $21,000 Combined mpg approx. 50

    Corolla MSRP $15,350 combined mpg 30

    Over 100K miles

    Corolla 3300 gallons of gas

    Prius 2000 gallons of gas

    Gas savings at $3/gallon Prius v. Corolla: $3,900

    Intial price savings Corolla v. Prius: $5,700

    Lost investment gain at 5% for 8 years on that price differential: $2,300

    Value Chad lost over first 100K miles driving by buying Prius: $4,100

    Price of replacement batteries for Prius at 100K miles: ?

    Price of replacement batteries for Corolla at 100K miles: $0

    Conclusion: Using costs as a very rough gauge of environmental damage: Chad harmed the environment by buying a Chad to pump up his ego, rather than the more economical Corolla.

    1. S/B “… buying a Prius”

      1. Actually, I liked it better the original way. lol

      2. Having a Chad around would pump up anyone’s ego.

      3. I think Chad has too many noxious emissions to be enviro-friendly.

    2. Prolofeed,

      Using costs as a very rough gauge of environmental damage

      Very rough indeed. A better gauge would be fuel efficiency, imho.

      The 100,000 miles estimate on the Prius batteries seems to be a serious under-estimate with many already passing 250,000.

      1. I think I’d rather drive a Ford Fusion.

      2. Fuel efficiency doesn’t take into account the energy used to produce the vehicle, disposal for the battery, energy spent to produce replacement parts, etc. So it’s not nearly as good a gauge as lifetime cost of ownership.

        1. I didn’t say it was perfect, but it is WAY better than cost as used in Prolefeed’s analysis.

          90% of energy use over the lifetime of the vehicle comes from operating the vehicle…taking into account all the things you mention.

          1. What metric are you using for “energy use over the lifetime of the vehicle” in order to figure that 90% is used to operate it?

            Unless you’re just pulling it out of your ass (strong possibility, I admit), you must be dividing the operating costs by something else. Why not just use the something else as a measure of energy costs?

            1. I linked to the information above in Gleick’s study…
              Or you can look up this…

              L. Elghali, V. McColl-Grubb, I. Schiavi and P. Griffiths. 2004. “Sustainable resource use in the motor industry: a
              mass balance approach.” Viridis Report VR6. Transport Research Ltd.

              But, again, you might try doing your own homework.

        2. Actually it is, because fuel use is 85-90% of the environmental impact of a car. The differences between one car’s manufacture and another’s are pretty trivial in comparison.

    3. You are not comparing apples to apples. Your Coralla has neither automatic transmission or cruise control, which would add another ~$2500. The cruise control actually saves money, in my mind, because one ticket would ruin my spotless record and cost me the cost of the cruise control in extra insurance payments. A Prius is also simply a better car than similarly-equipped Corrola or Civic (which were my other options). Your gas price is also very optimistic for the average over the next ten years. I would say $3.50 is conservative. Overall, it will break-even vs a Corrola or Civic, and actually save me money vs a Camry.

      Your battery failure crap is just that…crap.

      http://www.hybridcars.com/comp…..ilure.html

      1. Your farts must smell really good. Thanksssss!

      2. You do know that auto trans lowers fuel efficiency, right? Of course, considering your lack of confidence in your ability to drive at a non-punishable speed without technical assistance, you probably wouldn’t be able to handle manual anyway.

        1. Tulpa,

          You realize that the Prius still ends up more fuel efficient, right?

          1. Apparently you have to get an Insight, or a Civic Hybrid to get a manual transmission? Oversight!

            1. And still get worse gas mileage.

              1. Doesn’t matter, Chad… we’re still gonna die.

                Not necessarily from AGW, though.

      3. Your Coralla has neither automatic transmission or cruise control, which would add another ~$2500.

        Not certain how that matters. I purchased my Corolla specifically with a manual transmission for the gas savings, then factored in the cost of gas to conclude that financially the Corolla was a better option for me.

    4. You forgot to factor in financing costs. Your calculations assume that cash was paid for both. You also need to factor in sales tax when calculating starting costs.

      Using the Edmunds Auto Loan Calculator and leaving the sales tax at 7.5% and loan interest at 6.6%. The Prius has a starting price of $22,890.00 and the Corolla of $16,731 or around $6,100. Which means that given 10,000 a year in driving, means that it would take 15 years for the Prius to break even.

      1. I got a better interest rate than that, and put down a substantial down payment. Depending on gas prices, it will be around break-even for me, which is my initial claim – that I cut my emissions transportation-related by half for no cost.

        You guys are sure expending a lot of energy to prove that I would have spent $600 less over ten years for a Civic or Corolla, as if demonstrating that cutting my emissions by half costs $5/month makes a point on your behalf.

  40. Chad and his ilk are no better than right-wing Christians who want to use the power of government to make people live THEIR way.

    Period.

    1. There seems to be too many similarities in statements decrying the use of fossil fuels and statements decrying teenage premarital sex.

  41. Daft Climate Change Agreement Released

    Fixed the title.

    1. Those punks want emissions lowered around the world.

            1. I knew is was gonna be Daft Punk…I’m so hip.

  42. Wow that is some pretty cool stuff!

    RT
    http://www.online-privacy.th.tc

  43. These proposals always require reductions as a % from 1990 levels. What would the % be from present day levels? (nearly 20 years later) Seems like a pure attempt to hide what their real intentions are.

    1. A quick search gives this. It appears that current emissions are 25% or so above 1990 levels.

      1. So if N (Now) is the current CO2 emissions, G (Goal) is the proposed emissions, and T (Then) is 1990 emissions:

        G = 0.75T (25% lower) -or-
        G = 0.60T (40% lower)

        and:

        N = 1.25T (25% higher)

        This gives:

        T = 0.8N

        so:

        G = (0.75)(0.8)N = 0.60N -or-
        G = (0.60)(0.8)N = 0.48N

        So an accurate statement would be:

        “…for 2020 emission cuts from all wealthy nations on the order of between 40 and 52 percent below current levels…”

  44. I’d like to ask a serious question. What if AGW were real? I really don’t think it is, so I’m posing this as a hypothetical question. Well, two, really. 1) Is there a particular level of evidence that would be convincing? and 2)What would be the Libertarian solution?

    1. “I’m a libertarian who *gasp* believes that AGW is real. My solution would be the “Pigovian” tax on pollution causing fuels, justified by the fact that pollution damages the property of others.”

    2. As to question 1, libertarian Jerry Taylor, energy analyst for the Cato Institute believes that AGW is real.

    3. What need would there be for a solution?

      The predictive value of the theory is useless, since predictions range from ” we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates” to “If the planet gets too warm, the water vapor feedback can cause a runaway
      greenhouse effect. *The ocean boils into the atmosphere and* *life is
      extinguished”

      1. We need this solution because it protects property rights.

        For an answer to your problem with predictive value, see my answer to the same problem below…

  45. Remember boys and girls, Society demands fairness.

    Filling in for Society tonight (and every night) will be Tony. But it’s okay, because tony knows exactly what society deems fair.

    He knows this in much the same way your typical snake-handler is able to divine God’s Will.

  46. For 20 years, as this crowded planet grew warmer, nations have gathered annually to try to do something about it. History now brings them to Copenhagen, a chilly northern capital, and to a crossroads.

    “And Now The News” …

  47. Watch the first episode of Stossel on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..mp;index=0

    Notice neither Stossel nor his guests deny AGW. They only point out that there is only a very small chance of a climate crisis, and that all of the plans put forward are too costly. What solutions do they propose? Subjecting consumers to the true price of pollution causing fuels! Wow guys, isn’t that what I’ve been trying to tell all of you AGW denying idiots?

    1. See Part 4, 3:15

    2. No. I took this path the other night and you were not cool with it.

      1. Which path? Linky?

  48. Who cares, Warty? another piece of chum isn’t going to cost me more than a few seconds anyway.

  49. EU may sign and promise whatever it wants, but it has pretty hard time shoving it down member states’ throats. so at least in Europe, any agreement will be being screwed as much as Kyoto was.

  50. 2)What would be the Libertarian solution [to AGW, if real]?

    Depends a lot on the libertarian you ask….

    Shrugging and going about their business?

    Selling any low lying property they own?

    Buying a diversified portfolio of infrastructure construction investments, and getting out of insurance stocks?

    Suggesting a Pigovian tax on things that cause AGW and the giving the proceeds to harm abatement (though who’s going to administer it, I couldn’t say, since it would need to be done on a global scale)?

    Preferring to handle it all through some kind of micro-tort system?

    Decisions, decisions, decisions.

    1. I’m a libertarian who *gasp* believes that AGW is real. My solution would be the “Pigovian” tax on pollution causing fuels, justified by the fact that pollution damages the property of others.

      1. You’re far from the only libertarian who believes in AGW, if that’s what you’re worried about, heller. Even though I’m not quite sold on it, I’ve always appreciated Ron Bailey’s takes.

        1. What do you mean by “sold on it”. Scientists are around 90% sure. Clearly, this justifies action, and yes, slightly less action than if we were 100% sure (and slightly more than if we were 80% or 70% sure, or so on). Neither governments nor individuals should wait for impossible certainty before acting.

          1. I don’t disagree with acting on it. I’m just doubtful of how reasonable LTCAG’s proposal is.

          2. Nobody asked you, Chad. Go back to fucking yourself with that cucumber.

            1. Um… I’m being forced to participate here…

          3. Scientists are around 90% sure.

            Sure of what ?

            That ” we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates”?

            Or “If the planet gets too warm, the water vapor feedback can cause a runaway
            greenhouse effect. *The ocean boils into the atmosphere and* *life is
            extinguished”?

            1. Sure that AGW is real, caused by humans, and has negative effects.

          4. 90% of the scientists are sure?
            or
            all scientists are on average 90% sure?

      2. heller, I am cool with you being a libertarian. I only ask why you give a free pass to scientists for being objective. Do you give a similar free pass to economists? Is TARP cool? Are markets magic? Is the Fed cool?

        I think scientists (particularly in the ecology fields) can be very subjective in the follow up to their published papers. If the science is solid, their job is done. That is where I differ from you. You think their recommendations are other than non-science.

        Example: Scientist proves world will be hit by asteroid in 12 yrs. His recommendation: fill scarce bunkers up with people brilliant like him.

        My recommendation: he might be brilliant but who is to say his children will be. And who is to say any female would want to lay with him. i.e. his recommendations have superceded the science he can do, however well.

        1. Well thank you. Many here have labeled me a statist simply because I argue that AGW is real. I don’t believe that scientists are totally objective. I do know from first-hand experience that the struggle for objectivity is mandatory in science. There is a scientific process, a set of rules that all scientists must follow. Additionally there is little incentive towards non-objectivity for scientists. It’s not the same for other areas that are somewhat scientific. Economics works under a far less rigorous system than other sciences. It is more theoretical and less empirical. That is why an appeal to expert climatologists should be treated differently than an appeal to expert economists, sociologists, and especially politicians.

          “If the science is solid, their job is done. That is where I differ from you. You think their recommendations are other than non-science.

          Example: Scientist proves world will be hit by asteroid in 12 yrs. His recommendation: fill scarce bunkers up with people brilliant like him.”

          I never said that non-scientific recommendations should be considered science. That just doesn’t make sense, and I completely disagree with it. The solutions that are suggested by climatologists are not empirical, therefore they should not be considered scientific. Many here believe that they can dismiss the science behind AGW because they find faults in these solutions, but the two are not conditional upon each other. The science is still right even if the proposed solution is bad.

          I hope that clarified my position on these things. All I ask is that we trust the objectivity of scientists when they tell us that the data shows AGW is real, nothing more, nothing less.

          1. I do know from first-hand experience that the struggle for objectivity is mandatory in science. There is a scientific process, a set of rules that all scientists must follow. Additionally there is little incentive towards non-objectivity for scientists.

            heller, I agree with almost everything you said, but many people are rightfully concerned about the rigor of the application of the scientific method in Climatology, particularly after Climategate.

            1. No, only crackpots are concerned.

              The only seriously troubling emails were Phil Jones’ suggestion to delete emails, which no one followed up on, and some that indicated how they were unwilling to share their data with crackpot FOIA-request-spamming trolls.

              The actual violations of “scientific method” happened when a skeptic editor allowed a paper through peer review despite scathing reviews. Several of the disputed emails are the HADCRU scientists responding to this breakdown…and correctly, I might add.

              It only goes to show how fair-minded they are that they actually allowed this political paper into the IPCC report (though they merely discussed excluding it).

              So the only legitimate complaint out of Climategate is transparency, and that is old news anyway. New papers (by the HADCRU group or anyone in the field) are loaded to the hilts with supplemental information and code.

              1. That’s quite some spin, Chad.

                1. Which part is spin?

                  Read some editorials written by scientists concerning this matter. You will universally find the same thing: concerns about FOIA gamesmanship and the discussion of deleting emails, and the lack of sharing of data with trolls. There is zero change in the overwhelming evidence for AGW.

                  1. “lack of sharing data with trolls”? Why, Chad, why?

            2. Yes, the CRU scientists obviously veered off the path. But people should also note that they did not fabricate data. There was a chart here a few days ago that shows that the CRU data doesn’t say anything different than other independent research groups. However, it seems that they were not transparent enough. The consequence of their actions is that they will no longer be taken seriously in the scientific community. So I think the problem has really been solved, and we shouldn’t be more afraid of tainted data than we already were.

          2. All I ask is that we trust the objectivity of scientists when they tell us that the data shows AGW is real, nothing more, nothing less.
            I personally believe AGW is real, Anthropogenic Global Warming simply means human caused warming. To me it would be rather hard to believe in urban heat islands and not believe in human caused warming. However there is a difference between believing that humans do affect their environment and the CO2 hysteria that is happening. Does CO2 contribute? More than likely it does, however there is not a clear enough scientific understanding of the earth to identify how much of the temperature change is due to “natural variability” and how much is due to CO2. Which means that we have no idea how much of an affect cutting an arbitrary amount of CO2 will have. Will it have an affect? Yes. Will cutting CO2 emissions by 25% halt warm. No one knows.

            1. I totally agree, which is why I am against CO2 limits and anything like that.

    2. Good points 🙂 thanks

      1. are you really a girl?

        1. Why do you ask?

          1. I was just being immature. But I also think it’s cool you’re a girl.

  51. The climate summiteers at Copenhagen are playing a strange version of the politics of cultural despair. Western leaders make extraordinary statements, condemn the way of life of their fellow citizens, then stand around uncertainly. They face criticism from the greens and horror from the rest of us – although their lack of courage, in the end, may turn out to be their best quality.

    See “Copenhagen and the politics of cultural despair”:

    http://vulgarmorality.wordpres…..l-despair/

  52. Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..-of-scale/

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..i-def3.gif

    1. What is funny about these ice core graphs is they are totally counter to Chads claim that Greenland will melt and flood the world.

      Hey Chad why didn’t Greenland melt 1000 years ago when it was soooooo much warmer there?

  53. The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

  54. Well, Chad sure has me convinced: all we have to do to save the planet is start living like him. So, tomorrow, everybody has to move near where they work. Sure, there’s not enough housing in places it will be needed, but we’ll just build all the high density housing we need and move all the stores and services into crowded up shopping malls under the high density housing so those workers don’t have to travel either. And then we’ll just move everybody whether they like it or not — right after we build some hybrid moving vans. And, best of all, this massive shift in population and all the needed new construction won’t have any energy cost at all, because Chad will decree it won’t as a positive freedom.

    1. You are right. We need a massive shift of population into high-density urban cores, and out of the wasteful suburbs. Unfortunately, we can’t do this in a day.

      1. The point, that you have, as usual, missed, is that such a fundamental restructuring of our cities is impossible without a massive expenditure of the energy which you believe it would save.

        1. Yes, people will need to be relocated. Unfortunately, force may need to be necessary if we’re to head off this coming environmental apocalypse. Do children want to go to school or eat their vegetables? No, but as parents we’d be irresponsible if we didn’t make them do these things. And like children, as they grow older, people will see the wisdom in these policies, and realize it was for their own good.

          And for those who remain selfishly resistant, a gentle switch to the behind will help guide them down the right path.

          1. Best. Troll. Ever.

            1. Or, in Troll Language:
              Reve. Llort. Tseb.

          2. Yes, people will need to be relocated. Unfortunately, force may need to be necessary if we’re to head off this coming environmental apocalypse.
            Trail of Tears part Deux.

          3. Do children want to go to school or eat their vegetables? No, but as parents we’d be irresponsible if we didn’t make them do these things. And like children, as they grow older, people will see the wisdom in these policies, and realize it was for their own good.

            Did Chad just medium Mussolini?

            1. I’m hoping “Aha Moment” is right. Because otherwise, uh oh, stay away from Chad.

            2. No, Chad is treating 300 million American adults like they were children.

              Which is what liberals do.

          4. Yes, people will need to be relocated. Unfortunately, force may need to be necessary if we’re to head off this coming environmental apocalypse.

            I got a better idea: let’s shoot despotic whiny liberal fascists like Chad and feed them to our dogs. When every last whiny liberal fascist has been turned into kibble, we’ll be surprised at how many of the world’s problems will magically disappear:

            “Climate Change”: no longer considered an apocalyptic threat, but instead welcomed as the actual natural blessing it is to our planet, which has been chilled far too long since the days when Greenland was truly a thriving green land where Vikings could grow their crops. Likewise, when the natural cycle sends temperatures spiraling back down after a long warm season, there’ll be no new apocalyptic foolishness about global cooling or an impending ice age.

            Gun control: since liberal fascists like Chad are almost all in favor of other forms of fascism such as gun control, it will be forever eliminated from serious consideration along with those fascists. We’ll all be free to drive around with advanced military arsenals in the gun racks of our pickup trucks if we so desire. (Of course, once the fascists who want to relocate us forcibly have all been shot, we won’t feel that desire so keenly anymore, so we probably won’t carry lots of guns around, but it’ll be nice just knowing that we’re free to do that if we want to.)

            Population control: once the liberal fascists are all “aborted” and fed to our dogs, children will once more be seen as a blessing rather than a curse and joyously welcomed into a world abundant with newly exploitable resources to raise them. (They’ll be newly exploitable, of course, because we’ll eliminate the liberal fascists’ regulations against exploiting them.)

            Racism: the death of the liberal fascists will also eliminate the vast majority of the world’s “soft” racists and along with them their racial busing programs, affirmative action quotas, and racist laws against interracial adoption. America will be a true melting pot again and racism will be all but eliminated here. (Any remaining “hard” racists will end up getting themselves shot for harassing well-armed black people.)

            Economy: with liberal fascists no longer present to enact their crippling regulations on business, all kinds of production will boom, parasitic behemoths like GM will be broken up and sold to their more competent competitors, and huge numbers of federal employees will be thrown out into the streets to starve while even huger numbers of private citizens receive good jobs in a burgeoning private sector.

            Education: without the fascists around to boost them, our evil public schools will have their budgets eliminated and be closed or sold to the private sector. Homeschooling and private schooling will explode and our children will all know their history far too well ever to listen to liberal fascists like Chad and his ilk ever again.

  55. Double, triple, quadruple up. In the name of Obama. Please? Just for Obama. It’s very important!

  56. This thread is sucks.

    watch this instead:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

    1. Already beat you to that.

      1. yeah i saw that…good job

  57. I think “pre-industrial”, as the term “industry” is though of in modern times, clearly ends sometime during the Little Ice Age of 1300-1850. Seeing as how it is impossible to meet the “2 degrees celsius” standard when your starting point is in the middle of an ice age, it is obvious to me that the warming criteria were selected to make the climate agreement permanent and inescapable.

  58. Say, hypothetically, that global warming due to human activity is unquestionably real. From the libertarian perspective, what would be the plan of action (or perhaps inaction)?

    1. Plans? We don’t need no stinking plans.

    2. Adapt to the new warmer climate!

    3. A Pigovian tax to make the price of pollution causing fuels include the cost of pollution on the property of others.

      1. Which would be a regressive tax, heller.

        Unlike the Fair Tax, which isn’t regressive… but that’s another argument.

        1. I don’t care, I’m not a liberal.

          It’s a tax that is justified under libertarianism.

          1. Even if I did care, it isn’t regressive at all. The biggest payers would be companies that own factories and power plants. The poor probably cause less pollution than the rich.

            1. Ever seen one of those 1970s soot-spewing Caddies?

  59. The goal being ‘Keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels.’

    Okay, I choose the 1200 BCE (pre-industrial enough for ya?). We’ve got a long way to go.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    1. I just posted that above. Here’s the animated GIF:

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..&h=187

      from

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..-of-scale/

    2. Okay, I choose the 1200 BCE (pre-industrial enough for ya?). We’ve got a long way to go.

      I think Chad and Al Gore want 12000 BCE

  60. The Chads of this world have an almost religious faith that if all of us just do as they say the world will be a better place. We shouldn’t call them names because they are idealists and dreamers, they are part of our collective conscience.
    Their distrust of the free market system, capitalism, profit, and free choice of others compels them to push for a stronger government, one with the power to force people to do things for their own good. They picture themselves as the driving moral force to make things better, but once they get the kind of all powerful government they need to drive home their goals, they run into the reality of people like Cuffy Meiggs. The idealists can never compete and keep control of government when they are faced with the real Hitlers and Stalins, people who will lie, steal and kill to gain control of the government the moralists have produced. They end up delivering us to the control of thugs and power freeks who profit or get joy from making others do their bidding. They end up wailing, “But this isn’t what we wanted!” as they themselves become victims of the government they have helped create.
    I would guess about 25% to 30% of the population of any country are these kinds of true believers, and occasionally they do get control to build they kind of government they want. With the current administration they have a lot of influence and are pushing us as rapidly as they can toward the government they know we need. If we can’t get away from their influence by 2010 or 2012 we may just see ourselves moving into the same kind of government China and Russia finally abandoned.

    1. They don’t “distrust the free market system, capitalism, profit, and free choice of others”… they HATE those things.

  61. Lord Monckton Invades SustainUS Booth – Calls U.S. students “Hitler Youth”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw

    1. At first, I thought Monckton had surely overreacted. Then I saw this. I now totally see where he’s coming from.

      1. Yeah, well, Chad’s talk of forcibly relocating the rest of us into concentrated population centers sounds remarkably similar to some other fascist’s plan for his people in Germany, circa 1938… Let’s see, it was this greasy, lanky vegetarian guy in a brown uniform who had this weird mustache…

    2. Remember, kids: AGW denial and Holocaust denial are one and the same.

  62. Chad said one of the ways he reduces his carbon emissions was.

    3: I don’t eat much meat.

    Which illustrates the environmental ignorance of many environmentalists and AGW advocates.

    They don’t don’t understand habitats impact on the carbon sequestration, don’t understand habitat preservation, and don’t understand what drives habitat destruction.

    Because of this comprehensive technical ignorance folks like Chad don’t have a chance of developing workable environmental policies.

    Chad does not understand that the one of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions is to preserve grasslands and prairies. He does not understand that destroying prairies and grasslands releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases into the environment.

    He does not understand that it is government policy (via ag subsidies) to pay farmers to destroy grasslands and prairies.

    Because of his comprehensive technical ignorance Chad is incapable of recognizing the simplest way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture is to stop paying farmers to destroy prairies and grasslands

    If Chad wants to change his diet to help the environment the single most effective thing he could do is to eat more beef thereby making a small contribution to improving the economics of grassland preserving cattle ranching.

    This would protect cattle ranching and grasslands from the massive government driven economic pressure to raise crops and destroy grasslands

    1. Wouldn’t they just keep feeding then corn and corn byproduct and take the fed check anyway?

    2. In my sustainable world, the occasional meal of grass-fed beef or buffalo would be most welcome. Did I imply otherwise? However, there is not enough grassland to produce the mass quantities of beef we eat now.

      That is a far cry from the “cheap” beef you buy at the store now, a pound of which required nearly twenty pounds of grain and used as much water as all my showers for six months(in fairly dry areas, I might add, compared to my showers in an area with more water than we know what to do with).

      Land use policies are an integral part of the climate bills being discussed.

      1. ?!?!

        If there isn’t enough grassland to support the beef we consume now, where are the cattle slaughtered to get that beef grazing now? Neptune?

        1. He probably thinks that the current grazing scenario isn’t sustainable. It’s a fuzzy way of finding a problem where there might otherwise not be one = a cute way of justifying government control over something that doesn’t need it.

          1. Sorry I was just trying to imitate the earnestness of Chad Jedi.

    3. Chad’s a candyass.

      Fixed it for ya.

  63. I agree with this statement. I think you might be guilty of overgeneralization though. Not all “environmentalists” or “leftists” (and they are not the same thing btw) think “x” or “y.”

    I think I’m something of an environmentalist and something of a leftist. But I’m behind genetically engineered crops (they make it easier to feed people who need food and the majority of scientists think they are very safe for humans and the environment). I think nuclear power should get a big push to combat AGW. And I think people that want to combat “big agribusiness” or have the nation have a healthier “food policy” should eschew nannyism and simply kill the awful subsidy systems we have. And yes it might have the environmental benefits you mention.

    BTW-While I defer to the majority of people who are more likely to know wtf they are talking about regarding climate science (scientists) and tend to disregard on the subject folks like pretty much every poster here who lacks that expertise, I think the hysterics I’ve seen from Copenhagen are laughingly sickening treacle and that any policy that comes out of that meeting will have a 90% chance of being a stupid disaster (like the US Cap and Trade nightmare in front of Congress).

    1. MNG,

      Yet, it’s not like the scientists are disinterested. The guys who get published are the guys who do the most prolific research, which generally are the guys who get the most funding.

      And for a long time now, the vast treasure trove of funding has been from governments asking for demonstrations of AGW.

      Please note, a false finding does not generate follow on funding. Only findings that require further more refined studies.

      Thus, there is a strong incentive for scientists to promote alarmism to maintain their funding. And, having seen up close what happens when funding is cut (the prof supervising my research in 1991 had his funding cut in by the DOD and was scrambling to get the EPA to fund his research) that the loss of patronage preys on their minds.

      Mind you, the scientific method has systems in place to work around such biases – mainly a insistence on reproducibility.

      The CRU-email-theft/publication controversy arises out of the efforts of the Mann and his cohort to impede the attempts to reproduce their work by people who were deemed to be hostile to their work.

      Thus, while the number of scientists who support a position can be a useful proxy for a given proposition’s applicability to the real world, it is not by any means definitive.

      Sometimes bad theories gain prominence for a time despite being vetted by the scientific method. When coupled by the vast rent seeking efforts by companies like Enron who promoted AGW alarmism, the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats to stoke the alarm, and the scientists to give them a plausible cover in exchange for prestige, tenure and funding, the incentives for the bad science to gain prominence are magnified.

      Please note that the above means that AGW is a fraud (although I haven’t seen any persuasive case made yet). It merely means that until these attempts to short circuit judging the science on its merits ceases, it can’t be judged anything other than rank speculation.

  64. Most people with any sense who have the humility to know they don’t have the background to know everything int his area will see all these people with superior training, experience and accomplishments in the field of science on one side of the issue and all of these arm-chair amateur scientists with inferior qualifications and ideological fears on the other and come to the rational conclusion that the former are more likely to be correct.

    1. Did the CRU Hockey Team have any accomplishments pre-AGW scare?

      1. They all to my knowledge have PhDs in pretty difficult fields. That’s about ten years worth of hard work there. And I’m betting, though I don’t know, quite a bit of peer reviewed publications that were not necessarily AGW related. They’re probably tenured and have pulled in quite a few grants. In their chosen fields those are accomplishments.

        Of course they’ve brought a lot of that into question now with their actions.

        But equally of course there are tons of scientists (a clear majority) with similar accomplishments who find AGW compelling and for whom we have nor reason to think they have done anything that has undercut their accomplishments. Do you deny this?

        1. A clear majority of “scientists”? I’d love to see you prove that. Do you get to decided who is and who isn’t a “scientist”?

          I believe there are scientists w/ good credentials on both sides of this issue (and on every issue), so the “argument from credentials” is a wash.

          1. JT
            Go here for a (long) list, with links, of the major scientific professional organizations that concur with the IPCC.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..anizations

            Is there such a list on your side? Hell, I know the answer to that.

            1. Does this list predate Climategate?

              Are there no politics involved in organizational endorsements?

              http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2…..4504.shtml

              1. Climategate shouldn’t change any scientists’ minds if they determined their opinion of AGW empirically from their own data.

                1. True, but are you for sure that the scientists on the pre-Climategate list did not come to their conclusions based on reviewing false evidence?

                  1. Considering that every major research institute compiles their own data, I don’t think we should be worried about that. If you are a climatologist in the midst of this research, you’re not going to be basing ANY conclusions on data from sources you don’t know about.

                    1. and if it is peer-reviewed, then it is safe to say it is not “from sources you don’t know about.”
                      You’re right, they compile their own data… they don’t always source it.
                      Might be an important difference.
                      May the Force be with you.

          2. The problem that your two “sides” are not even close to the same size. If you are looking at climate scientists, it is a 97:3 ratio.

            Now, I can predict that in ANY matter that becomes political, a few percent of people will not change their mind regardless of fact, and will to go the grave defending their mistaken position. This has happened throughout the history of science, and is happening here again.

  65. And for those with only an elementary knowledge of logic:

    Yes, one cannot conclude the truth of a statement solely on an appeal to the authority of the person making that statement. That’s the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Likewise one cannot conclude that a statement is true solely on the fact that a lot of people endorse the statement. That’s the fallacy of an appeal to popularity.

    But it’s a well acccepted holding in the field of informal logic that the endorsement of a statement by most people with superior education, training and experience in fields relevant to the subject of the statement is a good reason to suppose the statement is true.

    So please, don’t waste anybody’s time with screams of “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!” That junior college Critical Thinking class only gave you a little bit of knowledge of the field of logic, and a little bit of knowledge can be worse than none at all…

    1. Did the CRU Hockey Team have any accomplishments pre-AGW scare?

    2. You’re not talking about logic. You’re talking about analysis of human behavior: if a person has more knowledge and training about a subject, with all else being equal, they’re more likely to know the truth about it than a person without that training.

      But all else is seldom equal. Human behavior is an extremely complex object. There are many other factors, besides education level, that influence people’s opinions. You have to take into account economic conflicts of interest, herd mentality, etc. And the Climategate revelations speak to those other factors.

      1. This is a common faulty argument in probability theory. You can’t know every single factor that effects an event’s probability (there are possibly infinite). Probability is assessed with the factors that we know for sure, the factors that are comparable. You have no way of knowing what conflicts of interest and psychological factors are going through the minds of climatologists, so you can’t ask that they be factors in the probability of a climatologist being right.

    3. I also like how MNG justifies appeals to authority and expertise … by appealing to authority and expertise.

      1. That’s because an appeal to expertise can confer a higher probability on an argument (over an argument that lacks expertise, or appeals to less expertise).

    4. Not to mention that informal logic (whatever that is) is to logic as astrology is to astronomy.

      1. So you don’t know what something is, yet you can make a dismissive analogy about it. Revealing.

  66. For the record MNG, I’ve spent enough time in grad school to know its more about jumping through authority’s hoops than intellectual firepower or high learning.

    1. That’s true to some extent about any field. Friends of mine who have risen through the officer ranks or into elite units in the military have much the same thing to say, as well as friends in business. Hell, I’ve spent enough time in the private sector to know that.

      But all things considered going to an elite school and showing enough of a combination of intellect (even if it is the kind of intellect that just knows how to correctly “play the game”) and perserverence to get a doctorate is quite an accomplishment. Most normal, sane, non-envious people recognize this. Likewise having the wherewithal to rise through the military or the boardroom is a fair (though not perfect; maybe someone is the son of the boss or the admiral for example) indicator of accomplishment.

      1. Having an accomplishment does not make you more likely to be right, which remember is the crux of your argument.

        1. Having the knowledge and training in a specific field does make you more likely to be right about something in that field. Go figure.

        2. But it does, Tulpa. If you were to ask me about my area of specialty, my chances of being right are pretty damned close to 100%…much higher than some random Joe down the street. If you were to ask me about things one step removed from my specialty, my chances still much higher than the norm. My edge still remains when dealing with anything technical.

  67. Chad, illustrating he still does not understand environmental issues or market economics, says.

    That is a far cry from the “cheap” beef you buy at the store now, a pound of which required nearly twenty pounds of grain

    The government pays the farmers to raise that grain. The farmers are going to produce that grain as long as the government continues to pay them to produce it.

    In other words grain production has been decoupled from the market and grain producers are protected from any kind of market signal. The more grain they produce the more the government pays them.

    To put it more plainly if all beef production stopped the grain would still be produced. Because the government pays the farmers to produce grain and guarantees their income if they do.

    Furthermore government subsidies drive destruction of grasslands and increased carbon emissions because government subsidies make destroying grasslands to plant government subsidized monoculture crops risk free and highly profitable.

    1. Yes, I am both aware of and despise these subsidies. However, industrial meat is an environmental disaster, regardless. If these subsidies were removed, there would still be feedlots.

  68. Chad said,

    Land use policies are an integral part of the climate bills being discussed.

    Chad’s statement should terrify environmentalists knowledgeable enough to recognize the terrible environmental destruction and increased greenhouse gas emissions government policies have caused.

    To put it bluntly many ecosystems won’t be able to survive much more government action to protect them.


    Palm oil: the biofuel of the future driving an ecological disaster now

    Until now palm oil ? of which 83% is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia ? was produced for food.

    But the European Union’s aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, partly by demanding that 10% of vehicles be fuelled by biofuels, will see a fresh surge in palm oil demand that could doom the rainforests.

    That is likely to kill off the “flagship species” of wildlife such as the Asian elephant, the Sumatran tiger and the orang-utan of Borneo which are already under enormous pressure from habitat loss. Plantation owners regard the orang-utan as pests because it eats the young palm oil plants and hunt them down ruthlessly.

    Much of this destruction was a direct result of environmental policies enacted to reduce carbon emissions.

    Yet palm oil, mixed with diesel to produce biofuel, was hailed as a potential saviour for the environment. Put simply, the argument runs that the palm oil plants produce organic compounds that when burned in engines do not add to overall carbon dioxide levels. The CO2 absorbed by the plant in its life-cycle should balance the amount it gives out when burned.

    However, the more the ecological fairytale is scrutinised the more it begins to look like a bad dream.

    Researchers from the Dutch pressure group Wetlands International found that as much as half the space created for new palm oil plantations was cleared by draining and burning peat-land, sending huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

  69. MNG, the beauty of arguing from “credentials” is that you can find credentialed people on every side of every issue:

    The Climate Science Isn’t Settled
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..25400.html
    Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    1. To quote Adam Sandler (not an expert on science): “whooopedy-doo!” We can both cite individual scientists. But I can cite organization after organization.

      Hint: these organizations are comprised of many, many individual scientists…

      1. And the scientists in that organization are unanimous in their support of the leadership’s positions, I take it.

        Sort of like since the leadership of a 300 million-member organization said that Saddam had WMDs back in 2003, it must have been true.

        1. And how many of those ‘endorsements’ are pre-climategate?

          1. Are there no politics involved in organizational endorsements?

            http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2…..4504.shtml

          2. Sorry, here’s the link

            http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2…..4504.shtml

            1. This argument is a dead end. Tulpa can’t prove that the majority is ALWAYS right, but you can’t prove that the minority is ALWAYS right either. I could also point out that the WMD example is not relevant because it is not an example of the majority being wrong in science.

              Logically, however, we should side with the majority scientific consensus. The probability of many scientists being right is higher than that of a few scientists being right. Yes, virtually all true scientific theories started out as minority views, but now they are consensus views. AGW was once a minority view, but now it is a consensus view. So the fact that AGW skepticism is a minority view doesn’t actually tell us anything about its validity. Come back and talk to me when AGW skepticism is the majority view.

              1. No, logically we should side with the what our reason leads us to believe is more true, not handing our judgment over to a consensus. Science is NOT fucking settled when 50.1% of the scientists momentarily believe one thing. It is not a fucking election.

                1. What is your reason for not believing in AGW? If you have a valid, logical reason why AGW is not true, then why haven’t you convinced everyone with it? If you can’t fully understand climatology, then you can’t just reason that one side is wrong and the other is right. If we could, we wouldn’t need scientists or science at all.

                  Now that we know why we need scientists to figure out things for us, how do we choose which scientists to listen to when they disagree? If we don’t have the scientific ability to outright disprove or prove either one, then we should side with the scientists who have the highest probability of being right.

                  I never said that science is settled by a majority consensus, I said that the majority has the higher probability of being right. And the larger the majority (it’s much bigger than 50.1%), the more probable it is that they are right.

                  1. AGW isn’t true because the data is fraudulent.

        2. No, but there is substantial agreement by most of them.

      2. Science is not a democracy, MNG. Having 50.1%+ of the scientists thinking a theory is correct doesn’t make that theory true.

        All scientific revolutions start with a tiny, insignificant minority of one being more right than everyone else.

        1. AGW also started out as a minority, and then was accepted by the majority. An appeal to the minority is even less logical than an appeal to the majority. Until the AGW skeptics can prove that AGW is not real, there is no reason to believe the minority over the majority.

          1. What the-? Prove a negative?

            1. OK fine, prove that the majority consensus is wrong. That is possible is it not?

          2. There is no reason to believe the majority over the minority. It’s either a more true statement, or it isn’t. It can either make falsifiable statements that no one can falsify, or it isn’t science. It either opens up its data and findings to other to poke holes in and try to disprove, or it’s not science.

            And the burden of the proof is on those seeking to posit a theory.

            1. Wrong, the reason is called probability. If you can’t decide between sides based on the merits of the arguments, you must fall back on probability. AGW is a falsifiable theory and there are people who try to disprove it, so what is your point?

              The burden of proof does not mean we should assume the theory is wrong until proven outright. Evolution isn’t proven, and there is a minority that aims to disprove evolution, yet I doubt you would reject evolution because of this. Why do we accept evolution even though it isn’t proven? Because the majority believes that evolution is correct.

              1. Why do we accept evolution even though it isn’t proven? Because the majority believes that evolution is correct.

                It also happens to be the only plausible theory of its type.

                1. Intelligent design proponents would disagree.

                2. Intelligent design proponents would disagree.

                3. For some reason the spam filter does not like it when I mention the name of a certain movement that starts with intelligent and ends with design. Here is what I was trying to say:

                  “[Synonym for Smart] Design proponents would disagree with you.”

                4. Wow! You just conceded EVERYTHING to the alarmists, because the deniers have no plausible alternative.

                  Natural variation is not magic. It happens FOR A REASON. And to date, every other plausible reason for the temperature increase has been found completely inconsistent with the data.
                  This has been your Achilles heel since the beginning.

                  Game over, thanks for playing.

              2. Evolution is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, which has plenty of physical evidence for it (fossil record, natural selection experiments, etc). That can’t be said of AGW. The phenomena it purports to explain haven’t been observed yet, and the evidence consists of the results of computer models whose input data and code have not been made available for public scrutiny.

                1. AGW says that pollution caused by man has increased the warming of the climate. This is an explanation of the warming trend that ALREADY EXISTS. As man has increased pollution, the warming trend has increased. That is all that scientists need to show in order to make AGW as valid as evolution.

                2. Tulpa,
                  That is just flat out factually incorrect.

                3. Are you claiming that no one has ever stuck CO2 in a spectrometer, or what?

                  CO2 aborbs IR light. IR is how the earth sheds heat. How are you going to coat the planet in CO2 and NOT heat it up?

            2. AGW theory DOES make falsifiable statement. Two in particular are

              1: The troposphere will warm while the stratosphere will cool (confirmed).

              2: Warming will be stronger at night (confirmed).

              Both of these point strongly to AGW, and run completely counter to what one would predict if it were something to do with sunlight, which would, of course, warm more during the DAY, and would heat the entire atmosphere, not just the bottom layer.

          3. AGW pushers are not talking about a matter of mere belief — they’re talking about shredding the standard of living of the rich countries of the world, and forcing the poor countries of the world to remain in bone-crushing poverty for the remainder of the duration of human existence.

            You need much better proof than you’ve got, to justify that course of action.

            1. I believe in AGW, but I don’t support those courses of action. Belief in AGW does not mean that you have to advocate those things, nor do they logically follow from belief in AGW. All I want to justify is making people pay for the damage caused by their pollution.

            2. Tulpa,
              Again, flat out incorrect.
              And this time you have added in a lot of unsupported assumptions about the economic consequences.

              1. Hyperbole…a tool of sophistry to stop reasoned debate on a topic. Tulpa seems very willing to use it.

                Notice: doubting the science behind AGW while accepting conjecture about the effects of mitigation. One thing that is absolutely true is that modeling the economic consequences of AGW or AGW mitigation is a much younger endeavor trying to solve a much tougher question and so far unable to even begin to support statements of fact.

                It may, in fact, be an unsolvable “Black Swan” question. We can know and predict that there will be negative consequences, but it may be impossible to determine the scope of those consequences.

                1. You don’t seriously consider it plausible that standard of living won’t drop precipitously with global carbon emissions cut to preindustrial levels (especially with many more countries now enjoying the industrial lifestyle)?

                  Next you’re going to criticize me for doubting AGW but accepting that the earth is round without proof.

                  1. with global carbon emissions cut to preindustrial levels

                    No one is proposing to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels. In addition, energy from carbon free generation will replace the carbon generated energy, so the industrial life-style can go on. You are arguing against the flimsiest of strawmen here.

            3. “Shredding the standared of living”?

              Please explain how giving up one year’s worth of growth would devastate the economy.

              What idiotic hyperbole. The proposed plans are expected to cost 1-2% of GDP, similar to the current cost of all environmental regulations, which have hardly devastated the economy.

              1. 1-2% of GDP? The turnip truck driver has been worried sick about you the past couple of days.

              2. I mean, why have the developing nations always tried to excuse themselves from carbon regulation in all these agreements? Or tried to get huge monetary payments from developed countries in exchange for compliance? Why have developed countries demanded that developing countries share the burden? Why did the various nations of the EU pass the burdens imposed by their cap-and-trade scheme like a hot potato, if it’s so friggin’ cheap and economically inconsequential?!

                1. I mean, why have the developing nations always tried to excuse themselves from carbon regulation in all these agreements?

                  Because their current emissions are such a small fraction compared to the developed countries that they can reasonably blame the developed world for the problem even as they bear the brunt of the effects.

                  Or tried to get huge monetary payments from developed countries in exchange for compliance?

                  Because they don’t have the same resources to develop a clean energy economy, but that infrastructure would benefit the developed world since the carbon emissions all go into the same pot anyway.

                  Why have developed countries demanded that developing countries share the burden?

                  Because it is everyone’s problem.

                  Why did the various nations of the EU pass the burdens imposed by their cap-and-trade scheme like a hot potato, if it’s so friggin’ cheap and economically inconsequential?!

                  Because cap-and-trade is a piss poor mechanism.

    1. If only it was so simple. First of all, you are describing the effects of two different chemicals on the climate. They don’t necessarily contradict each other. Second of all, there is no universal “AGW theory.” Many climatologists disagree on the effects, causes, and magnitude of AGW. That does not mean that the idea of AGW is wrong or without value.

      1. The general “cure” consists of:

        Tax increases

        Energy price increases

        Control of the populace

        All in the name of concern for the environment.

        1. And what does that have to do with the validity of AGW???

          I don’t support “control of the populace.” I do support a Pigovian tax that introduces consumers to the true price of pollution causing fuels. If AGW is true, then pollution damages property, and the cost of that damage has to be included in the cost of fuel.

      2. It does show that the science is not settled.

        There is one thing to consider. The greenhouse effect is logarithmically related to the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This means that that the increase of the greenhouse effect from 100 to 200 ppm is greater than the increase in the greenhouse effect from 200 to 300 ppm.

  70. MNG, do individual scientists count, or (as a good liberal) do only organizations speaking for their memberships, whether said members like it or not, count?

    http://www.cato.org/special/cl…..rsion.html

    1. Individuals count…and you can count all skeptics with relevant scientific creditentials on your fingers and toes. They are massively out-numbered by their opposition.

      When a scientific organization says something, it means the vast majority of its members agree. On any issue with political implications, there will always be a group that goes to the grave sticking to their wrong-headed beliefs. It has been true since the beginning of science.

      1. Hey fuckhead, how do you explain quantum physics?

    2. Oh look, half the people on that list are retired. Wonder how many actually study climate science (those who are still working, of course).

      Is there a Project Steve for climate science?

    3. Also, the statement doesn’t deny AGW. It just says that there is no catastrophe approaching.

  71. Do these mere individuals count, or do only organizations?

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    1. Mickey Mouse could have (and probably did) sign that list. It is totally and utterly worthless.

      1. How about people who pretend to believe their own propaganda but pretty obviously don’t? For example, how about those hypocrites at Copenhagen with their C02-spewing 1200 limos and 140 private planes?

        As far as I’m concerned, Chad, the science sure isn’t settled, but the psychology is: judging by their actions, 99% percent of all your co-religionists don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming either and are well aware that all the “science” behind this apocalyptic religion of yours is bullshit.

        What the Climategate emails reveal about you liars is what we’ve known all along: your “consensus” is unscientific, your organizations are all unscientific, and your apocalyptic vision is unscientific. The e-mails also reveal that you eco-fascists have systematically suppressed and persecuted all dissent, and that you refuse to release the raw data because you know it discredits the massive hoax you’re trying to perpetrate on the rest of us. That you continue to appeal to these discredited authorities who demonstrably don’t believe in their own propaganda demonstrates that you don’t believe in it either and you know it’s total bullshit and you’re only repeating these lies because you hope you can fool enough people so that you can still impose your fascistic “solutions” to a non-existent problem on all humanity.

        Chad and Tony, I have yet to hear an answer from either of you eco-fascists on this subject, so I have to ask again: if your “scientific” organizations really believe all this bullshit, why do they keep acting like they don’t? Why aren’t you ripping them for spewing all that carbon dioxide everywhere they go? What reason do we have to believe you eco-fascists when you don’t practice what you preach?

        1. You are making a typical conservative mistake of seeing something as black-and-white when it is not. Science is never completely “settled”: it is a matter of degree. That the earth has been heating up for the last forty years and that our greenhouse gases are the primary cause is in little dispute among scientists.

          Your last paragraph is utterly idiotic. The carbon these scientists “spew” individually is many orders of magnitude smaller than what they prevent via their work.

          1. The carbon these scientists “spew” individually is many orders of magnitude smaller than what they prevent via their work.

            Your last paragraph is utterly idiotic. Your religious priesthood of junk “scientists” have spewed far more C02 with their ritzy conferences than their bullshit solutions to a pretend-problem could ever hope to prevent, and you know it.

            That’s because, like you, they know full well C02 isn’t a pollutant and all the world doesn’t produce enough c02 to make any real difference in the climate. Also like you, they pretend it’s a pollutant only because they want to con ignorant people into giving them power over all the rest of humanity, not because they give a damn about the planet. When the rest of our fellow citizens come to their senses and see through your “climate change” bullshit, we should hang all of you eco-fascists for attempted genocide.

            You’re pretty “black-and-white” about AGW being “settled” with all your bullshit about it being “in little dispute” among your cabal of pseudo-scientists, leftard. (I don’t doubt your fellow fascists have “settled” this among themselves, since those leaked e-mails reveal among other things that they’ve systematically kicked out all the real scientists and bullied the professional journals into not allowing dissenting proofs and arguments to be published.) It’s so “settled” according to you that you’re arguing in favor of global tyranny to enforce your fascist measures on the rest of us.

            Don’t dish it if you can’t take it, you murderous, treasonous hypocrite!

  72. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at http://www.RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.