quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

http://www.realclearenergy.org/

Excerpts:

"Former NASA scientist James Hansen, whose 1988 Senate testimony launched global warming into US politics, once compared trains carrying coal to power stations to those carrying Jews to the Nazi concentration camps. In 2008, on the 20th anniversary of his testimony, Hansen called for the chief executives of coal and oil companies to be tried for “high crimes” against humanity and nature."

Yeah: coal = Holocaust. No appeals to emotion there. Thats 'science'.

"On this, President Obama should talk to the White House head of regulatory affairs in his first term, Cass Sunstein.

In a 2007 paper, Sunstein analyzed the costs and benefits to the United States of world action to preserve the ozone layer and from participating in the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. He concluded that of all the nations of the world, America had the most to gain from global action on the ozone layer, but also had the most to lose from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. His figures suggested that each $1 billion the United States spent complying with Kyoto would yield it only $37 million in benefits."

"And without an effective international agreement, there are no benefits. Any cuts in emissions from the EPA’s war on coal will be outweighed by the fast-growing carbon footprints of developing nations.

Obama should know. He was there in December 2009 when India and China vetoed the Copenhagen attempt to reach global agreement. Before and since, the big developing economies made clear that they saw global warming as a problem created by industrialized nations, and thus theirs to solve. They simply aren’t prepared to stop raising their people out of poverty, as capping emissions would force them to do.

Today, even as Obama’s EPA starts to shut down US coal plants, China is building around 40 coal-fired power plants a year. Coal provides India with over half its electricity. "

China- not willing to stop lifting its people out of poverty.
Obama - perfectly happy to lower its people *into* poverty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

http://www.realclearenergy.org/

Excerpts:

"Former NASA scientist James Hansen, whose 1988 Senate testimony launched global warming into US politics, once compared trains carrying coal to power stations to those carrying Jews to the Nazi concentration camps. In 2008, on the 20th anniversary of his testimony, Hansen called for the chief executives of coal and oil companies to be tried for “high crimes” against humanity and nature."

Yeah: coal = Holocaust. No appeals to emotion there. Thats 'science'.

"On this, President Obama should talk to the White House head of regulatory affairs in his first term, Cass Sunstein.

In a 2007 paper, Sunstein analyzed the costs and benefits to the United States of world action to preserve the ozone layer and from participating in the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. He concluded that of all the nations of the world, America had the most to gain from global action on the ozone layer, but also had the most to lose from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. His figures suggested that each $1 billion the United States spent complying with Kyoto would yield it only $37 million in benefits."

"And without an effective international agreement, there are no benefits. Any cuts in emissions from the EPA’s war on coal will be outweighed by the fast-growing carbon footprints of developing nations.

Obama should know. He was there in December 2009 when India and China vetoed the Copenhagen attempt to reach global agreement. Before and since, the big developing economies made clear that they saw global warming as a problem created by industrialized nations, and thus theirs to solve. They simply aren’t prepared to stop raising their people out of poverty, as capping emissions would force them to do.

Today, even as Obama’s EPA starts to shut down US coal plants, China is building around 40 coal-fired power plants a year. Coal provides India with over half its electricity. "

China- not willing to stop lifting its people out of poverty.
Obama - perfectly happy to lower its people *into* poverty.

The Ozone layer and regulations to prevent thinning of the same have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Actually, the Southern hemisphere nations have the most to gain from Ozone regulations as can be seen by their drastic increase in cancer rates associated with Chlorofluorocarbon use and the associated increase in UV reaching the surface.

Your post seems a bit inconsistent as these are 2 totally separate atmospheric problems being lumped together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I didn't write the article Hill. I don't think the fault is the writer of the article either but Sunstein's.

Notice it said he analyzed the costs of global warming and ozone - together.
Why he chose to do that I can't say. But attacking the fact that he did so is rather specious. Suppose all the benefit derived from global warming, soley, none from ozone. Thats the best case for your argument.

So what - its still a billion dollars for 37 mil of improvement. This is similar to the study by the economist from cornell that found the best course of action (even if the 2007 ipcc was right) was to do nothing for another 50 years.

So let me ask you a direct question. Hansen was one of the top 3 leaders of the global warming movement in the US, if not the top scientist.

Does that testimony sound to you like the testiomny of a scientist? Or does it sound more like someone that has religious fervor?

One or the other: solely that quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I didn't write the article Hill. I don't think the fault is the writer of the article either but Sunstein's.

Notice it said he analyzed the costs of global warming and ozone - together.
Why he chose to do that I can't say. But attacking the fact that he did so is rather specious. Suppose all the benefit derived from global warming, soley, none from ozone. Thats the best case for your argument.

So what - its still a billion dollars for 37 mil of improvement. This is similar to the study by the economist from cornell that found the best course of action (even if the 2007 ipcc was right) was to do nothing for another 50 years.

So let me ask you a direct question. Hansen was one of the top 3 leaders of the global warming movement in the US, if not the top scientist.

Does that testimony sound to you like the testiomny of a scientist? Or does it sound more like someone that has religious fervor?

One or the other: solely that quote.

You didn't write but you posted it. Most people post things they understand and either approve or don't approve of.

Now, I ask. If the author was so fucking scientifically illiterate he didn't know the difference between ozone and global warming, why would you think his numbers were right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I didn't write the article Hill. I don't think the fault is the writer of the article either but Sunstein's.

Notice it said he analyzed the costs of global warming and ozone - together.
Why he chose to do that I can't say. But attacking the fact that he did so is rather specious. Suppose all the benefit derived from global warming, soley, none from ozone. Thats the best case for your argument.

So what - its still a billion dollars for 37 mil of improvement. This is similar to the study by the economist from cornell that found the best course of action (even if the 2007 ipcc was right) was to do nothing for another 50 years.

So let me ask you a direct question. Hansen was one of the top 3 leaders of the global warming movement in the US, if not the top scientist.

Does that testimony sound to you like the testiomny of a scientist? Or does it sound more like someone that has religious fervor?

One or the other: solely that quote.

You didn't write but you posted it. Most people post things they understand and either approve or don't approve of.

Now, I ask. If the author was so fucking scientifically illiterate he didn't know the difference between ozone and global warming, why would you think his numbers were right?

Didn't think you'd answer the question. Why should I answer yours when you won't reciprocate?
Have a nice day Hill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Still not answering the question. You've not disputed what Hanson said. Do you?
Do you think the author's credibility is so poor as to be a direct lie - then find a source that says so.

So does Hansons words - that coal is the same as the holocaust; are those the words of a scientist?

The fact is Hanson was a ideologically driven hack that embarassed Nasa.

quote:

“Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels. Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I gave the link to the entire article hill. Not my fault if its not there any more. And I didn't hack the article to change the meaning.

regarding Dom Ken - thats not the quote in question. That was hansens cleaned up quote after his original prompted quite an uproar. I'll see if I can find a cite to the original.