Is horse chestnut wood good for anything?

Build long-life, non-polluting passive solar heating panels to generate carbon credits to offset your sawdust taxes. Build engines that run on sunshine and you should be able to swim in carbon credits.

Where do I get mine? Is there a long line? :o)

And *your* plan is.....?

Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?

You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?

The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data forgery and lies.

The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.

And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder Minimum",

And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...

My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China, India and other "developing nations".

Yes. "Global Warming" is the biggest political propaganda scam to hit this planet in centuries.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is the single most wildly successful Propaganda film ever made - I'd call it Science Fiction, except that there is not one tiny scrap of actual "Science" in the thing. Nor any "Truth" for that matter.

-Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........

Umm, yes. Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.

Let me see if I got this right. There is a giant cabal of (mostly Western) scientists that have cooked up this global warming conspiracy to help China and India?

Whoa, skippy. You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Flat Earth Society, would you?

If you live within 20-30 feet of sea level and plan to live more than

Global warming comes from 2 sources. Burning horsechestnut wood, and arguing off-topic. Change the subject if you want to keep on blabbering off topic.

Well from what I can make of all the confusing hype written about sea level increase on Wikipedia, written by global warming alarmist is from 18 to 80 inches in the next 100 years, although all of that is prefaced on a rapid expansion beyond todays consistent rate of about 1 to 2 mm per year.

I assume that this global warming will wipe us out since the population explosion, ice age and famine all predicted by the same wack jobs seemed to have never materialized.

Stay tuned.

And here I thought global warming was the result of all the hot air generated by Al Gore.

Nope. I just know how to do basic investigation of what's being reported by real scientists.

It is certainly not a _giant cabal_. In reality, the IPCC report was written by a small handful of scientists; and any disagreement with each of the chapter editors was met with silence or derision.

When a soi disant scientist recommends prison for anyone who disagrees with him, he stops being a scientist (James Hanson).

While there is no doubt that the climate has changed since the beginning of the last interglacial, and sea level has risen over one hundred meters in the last 10,000 years, one should not expect either to become static in the 20th (or 21st) centuries.

The statistical manipulations used to attempt to tease out a global average temperature 200 years ago (much less 1000 years ago) have been pretty roundly criticized by real statisticians (see Wegner, et. al., M&M 2007 and the NAS panel report).

The idea the a precipitation proxy (tree ring widths in thousand year old strip-bark trees in the Sierra Nevada) is also a viable temperature proxy (with tenth of a degree C accuracy) is ludicrous; yet much of Dr. Mann's dendrochronological research (and spurious results such as the so-called hockey stick) based on such proxies has been shown to be flawed statistically and methodologically.

Science, in any discipline, is never "settled".

scott

I sure am not going to plan my life around the pseudo-science of the global warming alarmists. Their science is so bad, that the label is now "climate change" since their predictions of warming have kind of been blown away by the nasty fact that global average temperatures have not increased since 1998. So, now, if the temperature goes up -- the cause is global man-made climate change, if the temperature goes down -- the cause is global man-made climate change. More storms than usual? Global man-made climate change. Less storms than usual? Global man-made climate change.

So, given the fact that anything that happens is now "proof" of global man-made climate change, what would be required to disprove the hypothesis?

Considering the latest pronouncements are along the lines of "Yeah, well it may be on hold NOW, but just wait 30 or 50 years years and it's all going to happen AT ONCE" I think the hypothesis has been pretty much disproven.

Of course, that won't stop world governments from using the issue as another excuse to steal money.

I might suggest that you Google (didn't somebody say that Google is your friend?) on "climate changes". For some basic information look at the EPA web pages and perhaps Wikipedia. This will get you past Rush at least. Utilize some of the references given in these sites to pursue specific areas of your interest. A LOT of scholarship is available to bring you up to speed on the various forces involved in climatic changes.

mahalo, jo4hn

Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.