And I have problems with that, too. If Richard Lindzen says that there is a human contribution to global warming because of greenhouse gas emissions, then I ought to have problems with your statement, don't you think?
If you want to talk about the rest, then be more specific.
No. The real issue issue is how much. The IPCC is maintaining that they are 90 percent certain that man is responsible for the majority of warming. Just conceding there probably is a human component is different than placing some high confidence level on something that we really know little about. How did they calculate this confidence level? How do they know what amount is caused by human factors? The 'scientists' can't answer either of those questions, so they are liars in how they presented it. Their 90% confidence level is based on their feelings of consensus. Their assumption that most of the warming is caused by humans is based on their biases and not on facts that they have conclusively eliminated the other variables.
I will be specific. I believe that the bulk of the evidence is pointing to the SUN as the major contributor to the warming of the earth during the last century and indeed throughout history. Of the temperature change during the last century or so, my studies indicate human activities have likely contributed a maximum of 20% to the rise, with the remaining 80% due to the sun and its effects.
Furthermore, the benefits that we have accrued from that very small contribution FAR oughtweigh the costs of cutting CO2 emissions. Take for example, what Canada has effectively committed themselves for their share of Kyoto’s miniscule 0.07C temp rise slowing: stop driving ALL autos and stop ALL their coal-fired electricity. For that, the effect of their sacrifice, since they emit about 2% of the world’s CO2, will be 2% of 0.07C, or in other words, 0.0014C - one THOUSANDTH of a degree. Then you want to actually do something REAL and enact draconian measures that are THIRTY times more restrictive than Kyoto - and each increment of that is going to be more and more costly? It is time for Canada to refute and pull out of Kyoto, and we have to thank the US Senate for their strong stance in the 1990s in voting UNANIMOUSLY to refute Kyoto.
The ANNUAL cost of even Kyoto, according to Gore’s(!) own specialist, for the US, was 100-400B$ ... that’s billion with a B. That is not a “one time” cost ... it is a recurring cost. How many times has the “estimated cost” quoted by any proponent in government ever come in higher than the estimate? How many times has it come in lower? I maintain that even Kyoto would cost more than 400B$/yr. Bear in mind, also, that to do what the alarmists suggest is needed is to cut CO2 by THIRTY times Kyoto’s result! Though the cost of the such a cut would certainly not be linear, but probably sharply exponential, let’s pretend it is for now, and say that such a DUMB move would imply that the US spend 3-12 TRILLION DOLLARS per year of its 12T$ economy.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - even the 100B$/yr would cut into PRODUCTIVE activities would be like an added tax of 1% on productivity. Not much? Bear in mind that the difference between Africa and the United States is 1% higher productivity growth in the US during the last 200 years. That 1% (swelling into 4% and more and more) will clearly harm the world economy - much more in the Third World than in the US. Higher productivity is the key to human development, not higher taxation.
Kyoto, and other such CO2 limitations, are foolish. They were based on two things:
First, INCORRECT temperature data to begin with that grossly inflated temperature rises, until the effects of “urban island” and lousy kept temp stations was pointed out that... but the early alarmists couldn’t let that keep them down though they were grudgingly forced to at least somewhat correct their charts.
Second, the models are modelling only what based on the garbage they are fed... and there are so many free parameters in the models they could be just as well used to design a dress as to model Earth’s climate. OF COURSE, they show CO2 and temp change are correlated! That’s a prime input! Of course, they don’t show effects of clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays... and who knows what else... they aren’t designed to show that! There are a myriad of things that they don’t include - any of which could account for a temperature rise. I’ll still bet that the SUN is easily the most important player - and in any event, our efforts to change the temperature by draconian limiting of CO2 would have far worse effects on world health and happiness than the temperature change.
The real agenda of these global alarmists is to rid Earth of human activity, or at least limit it as much as possible, as the quotes in post#1 show. I’m surprised that so many people who consider themselves sane can possibly support them.
Global models: Garbage in, Garbage out.