David Kerman says:

On the gore thing, he also participates in the green switch program which means all the power going to his house comes from green sources.

Also this article doesn’t say all of the carbon tranding business are fradulent, just a disturbing amount.

I would venture to guess that Gore’s company is doing better than the companies refered to in this report.

Misanthropic Scott says:

Actually, the multi-state RGGI has learned from some of the initial mistakes made in Kyoto and has many ways to address some of these issues. Still though, even in its present state, most of what I’ve been reading is that it is having some benefit.

One thing that I really hope for is the implementation of a cap and trade system where the initial credits are sold, rather than given away. This would prevent an overabundance on the market, as happened in the first implementation of Kyoto.

There would be two options for doing this, one would be to auction off all of the credits, which would guarantee that the limit would be reached. Another would be to sell them for a price higher than expected for the sale at auction. This would encourage businesses to reduce carbon even further than the cap initially set, but allow them to reach the cap, if they are willing to pay the artificially high initial price.

Unlike a tax, this would also have the advantage of allowing the improvements to be made where it is most cost effective to do so. With a tax, all businesses will be hit and encouraged to reduce. With a cap and trade, businesses that can reduce their carbon output easily would do so, leaving credits for the businesses that find it harder. This makes the cap and trade more economically efficient.

Of course, accurate monitoring is required for either system to work.

Mike says:

#4, Scott here proved to me just the other day that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, humans are the cause of climate change… and so logically, humans are also quite capable of reversing it. And then I went to take a bath in the river.

ECA says:

OK,
a TAX will only be shuffled OFF to the BUYER of the product…Then to the NEXT slub, and they to YOU…YOU YOU YOU… they wont care, they AINT paying for it…ITS YOU thats paying….

How about the idea that someone forms a Corp, abd BUYS the Carbon trading Bonds, and then SELLS them…
1. He wasnt going to USE them in the first place.
2. He had NO machinery that would POLUTE, anyway…
3. probably dont have a Industrial corp ANYWAY….
4. He got PAID MORE then he BOUGHT THEM FOR….MUCHO MONEY to bypass regulation and EPA.

James Hill says:

I don’t know about all of that, but for every $10 sent to my e-mail via PayPal I’ll spend a day not posting on this message board.

Think of the hot air that you can prevent from being released.

MikeN says:

What about the biggest carbon trading fraud, the Kyoto Treaty?
Russia is making tens of billions of dollars off of Europe’s foolishness, and now China is looking to follow suit. China will be the leading greenhouse gas emitter by the end of the year.

Smith says:

“Carbon trading a fraud?”

The way Gore applies it certainly is. Every watt of energy produced is being used, the source doesn’t matter. I use to have similar arguments with my ex-wife over expenses. “if you can’t aford it then don’t worry, I’ll pay for it.” As if her income was not part of the household budget.

Same situation as Gore implying that there is a wind generator with his name on it, which only operates to offset his carbon footprint. I always suspected he was a fool, but is he an idiot as well?

ZeOverMind says:

#14 – … Only the neo-cons, deniers, and assholes like you treat global warming as a religion. Your unshakable FAITH in the indefensible is totally contrary to all scientific FACT.

The most pathetic thing about the so-called “scientific FACT(s)” you are claiming (spearheaded by AlGore and the Environmentalists) would have us believe that the case on global warming is closed. That my friend is bad science. Good science would continue to debate the evidence and continue to investigate the hypothesis. There are many times in science when we thought we had the answers only to find out that what we thought was true turned out to be the opposite. One only needs to recall how Einstein invalidated the Newtonian model of the Universe with the Theory of Relativity or how the Theory of Plate Tectonics revolutionized generally accepted ideas in geology. To argue that the case is closed and to claim that all who question the validity of Global warming as defenders of the indefensible is akin to those challenging the authority of the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition. It’s pretty obvious that the supporters of Global warming are waging a “Scientific Inquisition”

JimR says:

Some of the scientists who have the guts to challenge the IPCC:

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris) (and former global warming supporter)

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

Ian Plimer, Professor, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The Mawson Laboratories, The University of Adelaide

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (former IPCC supporter)

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University

JimR says:

Oops. I see that I listed Jan Veizer twice. Shameful! To make up for that, here’s a few more names:

David Henderson, economist, Westminster Business School in London, former head of the Economics and Statistics Department at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Patric Michaels, professor of environmental science, University of Virginia

AND not surprisingly… two reviewers and an atmospheric science consultant affiliated with the IPCC:
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant, Peter Dietze, an official reviewer and Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#21,24 – JimR,

Gee. 31 scientists out of the world’s climatologists. Oops. I ssee you listed an economist. But, we can even call it 32 if you like, just in case I miscounted.

From wikipedia: The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6]

And also from wikipedia: The IPCC is led by government scientists, but also involves several hundred academic scientists and researchers. It synthesises the available information about climate change and global warming, has published four major reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as more specialized reports.

So, the score stands at several hundred just in IPCC to your 32. That’s as near consensus as science gets.

But wait, if you order now … just kidding, but here are some more organizations that are in what is near enough to consensus for my taste: (again, source wikipedia, It’s late here. I’m too tired to do more exhaustive research.)

A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have used the term in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* US National Academy of Science
* Joint Science Academies
* American Meteorological Society

I’m betting that each of these organizations has more than 32 scientists.

JimR says:

I didn’t want to kill the thread with my list. Shall I post some more? I think I have another 50 or so. Those are just the ones I know about. Many of those scientists economists and statisticians are hare heads of scientific departments and organizations. I’m just one guy who spent maybe an hour compiling a list. I’m sure ther are hundreds more that I missed and hudreds more again who don’t want to put up with the crazy reactionists and perhaps even put their life in danger.

Why don’t you read up on WHY some of those scientists I listed disagree?
They have valid points. Some have reason to suggest that the principal cause of global warming is still unknown, others have evidence that global warming is mostly due to natural processes, and still others believe that climate forecasting isn’t as accurate as the IPCC ranges imply.

Mr. Fusion says:

#25, Pmitchell,
So often we get some dufus come along with some wild idiocy. Remember Senator Ted Stevens thinking the internet is just a series of tubes, or Ronald Reagan suggesting trees cause pollution, or Mark T. (post #16) suggesting CO2 can’t be a pollutant. Then you come out with your own know nothing comment.

There is a difference between weather and climate. Weather is immediate. Climate is the general average of weather over time.

JimR says:

Just some tidbits. Carbon Dioxide is not a poison and won’t kill you unless there is no oxygen mixed in with it… ie. suffocation. Oxygen, on the other hand, is poisonous at 100% if breathed for an hour or more and can cause seizures.

Commercial growers increase the CO2 concentration in greenhouses by up to 5 times atmospheric concentrations (1200 ppm) to increase produce yield up to 50%.

G’night