# Oakland Bay Freezes



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

For the first time in the five years we have lived here, Oakland Bay has frozen. 

Oakland Bay is a small offshut of the Puget Sound near Shelton. It is pretty much sheltered.

We have had subfreezing temperatures for at least five straight days now. Sometimes getting down to as low as 5 degrees at night.

My pond is almost solidly frozen. There was still some water moving under the ice. I broke through the ice and added water to submerge the pump.

The only complaint I have is we are wasting this great cold spell without any snow. 

Tomorrow it is supposed to begin warming up and the RAIN will return.

John


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

It's too cold to snow! Brrr! Gotta be around 32. 
Must be some fresh water flowing into that bay. 

At first I thought you were talking Oakland Ca.!!! 

Check your pond fittings after it thaws, might be some cracks... 

John


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Wait...I thought everything was supposed to melt these days. Least that's my read about what's going on in Copenhagen.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

John,
Still hoping for a little snow so I can get the plow ouit.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

So much for Global Warming, huh?


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

So **** has frozen over, eh! 
LAO


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Global Warming = Climate Change = greater extremes of weather conditions. 
Hot weather gets hotter. 
Dry weather gets dryer. 
Cold weather gets colder. 
Wet weather gets wetter.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Well...that certainly covers all the bases....


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Climate change = NORMAL, the climate is constantly changing and you can not change or stop it any more then you could stop the earth from spinning! It has done so for as long as this planet has had an atmosphere.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

You had better hope we can change it or we are all doomed.


Doomed I tell you, DOOMED!!!!







[/b]


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony, I don't think the moderators will let us continue down this road, but safe to say we may have different view points.. hehe


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

****? you Say!

I thought so the first two years we lived here. I had always wanted property with a stream running through it. But I never wanted the stream to run through my house!

Actually, in the winter the ground water rose so high that my crawl space filled up with three feet of water every winter and stayed that way until I got out the sump pumps which ran continuously from November through March.

I finally solved the problem by putting 35 yards of cement under the house which sealed most of the water out. Now I have a sump pump in one corner of the crawl space and it usually comes on only a few times each winter. So far this year it has not cycled once.

Now I have grown to like it around here. The summer's have been beautiful. They last from about June through September.

Today the temperature finally reached 32 here at our house.

Some snow predicted for tomorrow changing into rain.

John


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

Posted By jbwilcox on 12 Dec 2009 08:19 PM 
****? you Say!

Actually, in the winter the ground water rose so high that my crawl space filled up with three feet of water every winter and stayed that way until I got out the sump pumps which ran continuously from November through March.


John

Man, I'd have never guessed that kind of thing happens.









FSW


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

We had a cold snap here last week. While it didn't break records, the last time it was that cold here was 1978. Before that one would need to go back to the 40's and 50's. We had snow down to 500-1000 feet (most residents here live at less than 100' elevation). The hills surrounding Santa Clara valley were all dusted with snow.


For the GW crowd, it *HAS* happened before - it's just rare. Seems to me I read global temperatures have been COOLING for the last decade - an "inconvenient truth" that doesn't fit the UEA models and consequently buried and covered up as revealed in the UEA hacked/leaked emails.


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

I was in Glacier National Park this summer.

I saw pictures of the glaciers from 100 years ago and 50 and now. It is obvious that the glaciers are receeding. In fact, I think they predicted that the glaciers would all be gone by 2015.

Then of course, there is a new glacier forming on Mt. St. Helens.

So who is right? I think it is a natural cycle the earth goes through. Man may play a small part in it but wait 10,000 years and the glaciers will return.

John


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Way Nebraska has been this winter we should see the ice age in a few weeks!


----------



## bottino (Feb 7, 2008)

Oh, I get it. What ever happens is due to global warming, period.
Ok, ???????
I ain't buying.
Paul


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I used to have about a half dozen newpaper articles, collected over a few years in the early 70's that all begain with the same phrase: "Scientists now believe..." 

In the summer, after about a week of extreme hot temperatures the article would go on to state, "Scientists now believe we are still warning from the last Ice Age and we will continue to experience hotter and hotter weather for the next 10,000 years." 

Then in the winter, after about a week of extreme cold temperatures the article would go on to state, "Scientists now believe we are now entering the next great Ice Age and we will continue to experience colder and colder weather for the next 10,000 years."


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

By the time Global Warming becomes the problem it is going to be, it will slowly correct itself when the oil runs out and the consumption of fossil fuels halted by the increasing cost. 
Therefore mankind will be forced to use alternative renewable energy sources anyway. So you might as well start embracing alternative energies right now to learn how to take advantage of them.
Problem solved.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Totalwrecker on 12 Dec 2009 11:08 AM 
It's too cold to snow! Brrr! Gotta be around 32. 
Must be some fresh water flowing into that bay. 

At first I thought you were talking Oakland Ca.!!! 

Check your pond fittings after it thaws, might be some cracks... 

John 




John,
I cant tell if you are serious or joking! 
(your profile doesnt say where you live)
but 32 degrees is when it *starts* to snow! 
when people say "its too cold to snow" they usually mean things like zero to 10 degrees F..or below zero.

(and "too cold to snow" is generally an urban legend anyway..it can snow at zero degrees F) 


32 degrees is WARM when it comes to snow! 

very warm..about as warm as you can get actually! 


Scot


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

The bottomline the climate is changing....one should not just look at the short term "snapshot" but an extended record to understand what the changes are. So, whether it is man-made, nature, a cycle or combination of all those variables there needs to be adjustments to better understand any effects of water supplies, food/farming, use of energy, weather/climate and the future development of other countries. The worst one can do is say,"stay the course...." more so to debate it, make theories, have opinions but the fact is: climate change will effect our lives.A few years ago no one know of or understood the impact of the hole in ozone layer , but no one doubts that now. Mankind is part our worldwide ecosystem and with that we play a factor in the climate. It is a complex global world with more demands on resources and more stresses on the ecology.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

By the time Global Warming becomes the problem it is going to be...Yeah, and the sky is falling too. 30 years ago, overpopulation was going to end mankind. 10-15 years ago, we were headed for an ice age. Today it's global warming or the end of the Mayan Calendar that's going to do us in. Others believe Christ is going to return and bring about the end, and still others that it will be al-Masīḥ (Arabic for "annoited one" - also Jesus actually). I have a friend who has been waiting for the world to blow up for 35 years. 

I'll believe it when I see it."Scientists now believe..." Media hype and a way to keep the grants coming in. Follow the money and you'll never be far off.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm in your camp Dwight.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

*Global warming = FARCE* 
Just another way to try and bleed money out of successful Capitalistic Democracies.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll have to agree with ya' Dwight, human beings give themselves way too much credit/blame as the case may be, most every time.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

human beings give themselves way too much credit/blame as the case may be, most every time.It's called human arrogance. hehehe Despite the slow decline in formalized religion, we still seem to need to place ourselves at the center of the Universe somehow. Personally, I doubt our species is all that significant.









In ancient Greece, the greatest of all sins was Hubris (challenging the Gods or their laws due to pride), and that was the sin that condemned one to Tartarus (the section of the Underworld most resembling modern visions of ****). It also offended Moria (precursor of the Moirae), usually resulting in her dispatching The Furies to hound one to the ends of the earth.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 13 Dec 2009 10:58 PM 


snip


Personally, I doubt our species is all that significant.









snip


Speak fer yerself, fella!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Well there's the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence out there. But there's no reason to let that get in the way of strongly held personal beliefs, is there? 







After all, it's only our children's future we have to consider--no need to take that seriously.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By lownote on 14 Dec 2009 05:35 AM 
After all, it's only our children's future we have to consider--no need to take that seriously.




because i consider my childrens future, i would like some more CO² in the air and the climate a bit warmer.

having worked in ranching, agri- and silviculture most of my life, i came to understand that plants thrive on CO².
(one can damage plants in a greenhouse severly, if one does not allow new - CO² carrying - air into it.)
as to warmth - in warmer years the plants (other factors not changing) grow stronger, can take up more minerals from earth, and more CO² from the air, than in colder years.
(i. e. they produce more without more chemical fertilizer)

you being a scholar, you should know about the medeival climate optimum (around of our LOrd's year 1000). that must have been 8 to 10 degrees celsius warmer than today. (judgeing by the plant distribution)
when we will see wine plantations in newfoundland, trees in greenland, and so on, then we get to the (known) optimum. 
maybe, that above that some problems might occur. - but if that will be the case, i doubt, that we can foresee these problems now (we can't even foresee the local weather for more than a week)

if humanity is a relevant factor to climate-change, i allways ask myself, what did the crusaders and vikings do, to cause such high temperatures?


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 14 Dec 2009 06:19 AM 
Posted By lownote on 14 Dec 2009 05:35 AM 
After all, it's only our children's future we have to consider--no need to take that seriously.




because i consider my childrens future, i would like some more CO² in the air and the climate a bit warmer.

having worked in ranching, agri- and silviculture most of my life, i came to understand that plants thrive on CO².
(one can damage plants in a greenhouse severly, if one does not allow new - CO² carrying - air into it.)
as to warmth - in warmer years the plants (other factors not changing) grow stronger, can take up more minerals from earth, and more CO² from the air, than in colder years.
(i. e. they produce more without more chemical fertilizer)

you being a scholar, you should know about the medeival climate optimum (around of our LOrd's year 1000). that must have been 8 to 10 degrees celsius warmer than today. (judgeing by the plant distribution)
when we will see wine plantations in newfoundland, trees in greenland, and so on, then we get to the (known) optimum. 
maybe, that above that some problems might occur. - but if that will be the case, i doubt, that we can foresee these problems now (we can't even foresee the local weather for more than a week)

if humanity is a relevant factor to climate-change, i allways ask myself, what did the crusaders and vikings do, to cause such high temperatures? 

GENERAL ARTICLE
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 90, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2006 1609

Be careful what you wish for.....The effects
of carbon dioxide are a reduction in the pH value of
blood serum leading to acidosis4. The minimum effects of
acidosis are restlessness and mild hypertension. As the
degree of acidosis increases, somnolence and confusion
follow. One of the effects of these changes is a reduced
desire to indulge in physical activity. Other metabolic effects
of acidosis have been reviewed and shown to be extensive6.
Embryonic or foetal abnormalities are also possible
as the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affects maternal
metabolisms in succeeding generations.



I really do not think you want more CO2 in the air:
Primate susceptibility to high levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere is supported by the geological–palaeontological
record. During the Eocene epoch, the temperature
of the earth was much higher than at present, while
the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was
about the same as that at present. The fossil record shows
that during the Lutetian and Bartonian ages of the Eocene
epoch, primates were abundant on the Eurasian continent.
The geological record shows that by the Priabonian age
of the Eocene epoch (27 million years BP), the carbon dioxide
content of the atmosphere had risen to three times
that of the present day4. The fossil record then shows that
virtually all the primates of the Eurasian continent had
disappeared. Although it is accepted that these events
predate the existence of humans, some primates alive today
can be shown to be direct linear descendants of those
involved, such as the lemurs. It is a reasonable conclusion
from these observations that primates can survive in hot
climates, but are unable to endure high levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. 


Reference article 


http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf 


The "art" of science might not be perfect but it is better than the "witch hunts" and certainly more reliable than the Medieval reference. In closing, though we all romanticize the "industrial age" and in particular our hobby of trains I am not sure we would enjoy the atmosphere that surrounded the daily lives. The effectiveness of workers would probably mirror the above articles reference to work output:
The health effects of low-level carbon dioxide poisoning are likely to
be first observed in the results of athletic events, where maintenance of present performance records becomes difficult and the establishment of improved performance records never occur. It is possible that the performance of some athletes in the 2003 World Games already shows
the predicted effects.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

No one denies that global climate has changed dramatically in the past, and that the process of global climate change has taken place on its own in the past without any impact from human being. No one denies that. The point is that the climate data _overwhelmingly_ points to a much much much more rapid increase in temperature over the last 100 years than has ever been seen before. 


Could just be pure coincidence. Or it could be the massive consumption of fossil fuels and the addition of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air. I mean, suppose you walk into a room, and find one man dead on the floor with a bullet wound to the head, and another man standing there with a gun in his hand. Could just be a coincidence. People have died of bullet wounds in the past, long before the guy wth the gun was even born. It might be just a coincidence. I'm perfectly willing to admit that there's a slight possbility the science is wrong. Scientist might be worng about, say, the nature of electircity. I'm just not willing to bet on it. 


Next step: deny the scientific evidence, at which point we have nothing further to discuss. Science is far from perfect; scientists are often wrong. But not as often as people who just make stuff up because they want to believe it's true


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Well there's the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence out there.Debatable, and far from settled. There's an equal volume of evidence demonstrating the whole thing is a fraud. Science is not driven by "consensus" but by peer review and repeatability. Rather hard to verify repeatability when one throws away the original data and keeps only the rigged results. But there's no reason to let that get in the way of strongly held personal beliefs, is there? Bingo! Right back atcha. The point is that the climate data _overwhelmingly_ points to a much much much more rapid increase in temperature over the last 100 years than has ever been seen before.What about the last decade where things have cooled rather than warmed (another FACT which the UEA tried to bury)?

Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion now before it gets too personal or political. Do some real research, look at the FACTS on both sides of the argument, and make up your own minds. And as I said before, *follow the money!*


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

i ignore how it is in north america, but for europe there is a significant correlation between a scientists employment and his stance towards global warming. 
most global-warming "believers" are employed by the goverments in one form or other. (glorious exception -> finland! there exist globalwarming sceptics, who are employed by the state) 

as far as i know, we are presencing the second go to tax the air people are breathing. 
(first go was in the netherlands long ago, where the number of windows a house had towards the street was taxed. since then the people over there got used to houses with very narrow housefronts) 

as long, as the whole religion of global warming is based on mainly one research on less than three dozen trees, that led to the infamous "hockey-bat" grafic, that movement is not science. 
this research was published without any peer to peer control. 
aparently it took years, before the raw data was released. 
the computed period was restricted to the last 150 years (beginning with one of the coldest years recorded) 
as far, as i know in the computer programs that predict "disaster" the influence of water in the atmosphere was excluded or not taken in at its real magnitude (300 times bigger, than CO²) 

talking about "strongly held personal beliefs" - my strongly held personal belief is, that at best the base for the whole warming-danger is sloppy research. 
at worst it is intentional fraude, to divert public atention from inept goverments and criminal banksters.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 14 Dec 2009 07:20 AM 

Debatable, and far from settled. There's an equal volume of evidence demonstrating the whole thing is a fraud. Science is not driven by "consensus" but by peer review and repeatability. Rather hard to verify repeatability when one throws away the original data and keeps only the rigged results.What about the last decade where things have cooled rather than warmed (another FACT which the UEA tried to bury)?






ALL scientific debates are, by nature, "debatable." There is almost never 100% agreement in anything human beings do. That they are debatable doesn't change the weight of evidence. Yes, science is driven by peer review and repeatability, and yes, the overwhelming evidence--on the basis of peer-reviewed, repeatable findings--is that the speed of global warming has quickened dramatically. That things cool in a given decade, even if that is the case, does not change the overall trend. The UEA emails reveal that scientists are just like the rest of us in their tendency towards bias, but they don't really change the overall conclusion about global warming, unless you didn't believe that it was happening in the first place.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Then why is it that all the base-line data isn't open for examination? And the only way to even limited access to any part of it is to steal it.

Personally, I believe if the push keeps going on, then it will wind up causing another world war and at that point "Global Warming" now re-branded as "Climate Change" will be the least of our worries.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Posted By Scottychaos on 13 Dec 2009 03:44 PM 
Posted By Totalwrecker on 12 Dec 2009 11:08 AM 
It's too cold to snow! Brrr! Gotta be around 32. 
Must be some fresh water flowing into that bay. 

At first I thought you were talking Oakland Ca.!!! 

Check your pond fittings after it thaws, might be some cracks... 

John 




John,
I cant tell if you are serious or joking! 
(your profile doesnt say where you live)
but 32 degrees is when it *starts* to snow! 
when people say "its too cold to snow" they usually mean things like zero to 10 degrees F..or below zero.

(and "too cold to snow" is generally an urban legend anyway..it can snow at zero degrees F) 


32 degrees is WARM when it comes to snow! 

very warm..about as warm as you can get actually! 


Scot 

--------------------------------------------------------------

Scot, 
I thought I was being serious...
Where I live today doesn't mean much 'cause I was a navy brat... I walked the proverbial 6 miles to school through Maine winters...
But I do know that it can be too cold when the air gets freeze dried... saw that in Antartica, mountains that were 40 miles away looked 35 miles closer because the air was moisture free....

FYI; Vail AZ, 20 miles SE of Tucson; 30 degrees overnite and up to 76 during the day! Heater at night and windows open in the afternoon! That was Saturday.

RE; Global Warming; we live on a living planet, we go through cycles.
I'd be gratified if we could just clean up the polution and put an end to acid rain....

John


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

The immediate problem as I see it, is weather man is responsible to any degree, or not, for climate change, does NOT matter to those who believe it is so. They are on a course of action that WILL make energy so EXPENSIVE that the average income earning household will be reduced to choosing between energy and health care, or maybe neither? There is going to be CHANGE alright, energy for your house WILL be up by 25% or more, when you consider the TAX dollars that will be pumped into these energy sources to make them a profitable venture, for a politically connected few. Fuel for transportation, after they shut down most of the domestic sources (Alaskan Pipeline for starters) will at best be sufficiently available at a price 4 or 5 times higher then the past peak prices, to those who can afford it, which won't be many! or at worst will only be a part of "remember when you could buy gas everywhere and drive all the way to...." And the folks who are using horse and buggy for transportation, windmills to pump water etc will be laughing their asses off at the rest of us.. 
The current economic conditions will not improve if we continue down this course. We need to fix the economy FIRST. With 18% of the work force out of work, a little over 10% collecting unemployment, (which is temporary, and will end at some time) there is almost 1/5 of the US work force with NO INCOME soon, and another estimated 10% to 20% earning 25% to 50% less then they were. You add in inflation due to the devalued dollar that will cut your spending anther few % points. 
Sorry but climate change is not even a "blip on the radar"


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

I hadn't planned to start a Global Warming Thread when I wrote about Oakland Bay freezing. There has been a lot of freezing on Hood Canal also. Apparently the locals say this has not happened in many years.

Oakland bay has completely thawed this morning as the temperature for the past 24 hours has been just at 32 or slightly above. 

I do think there is warming going on. However, I am not convinced that it is man made warming. The earth goes through cycles. 10 years or even 100 years is just a drop in the bucket in geological time. It is far too short a period to even prove that a trend is occuring.

John


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 14 Dec 2009 12:09 PM 
The immediate problem as I see it, is weather man is responsible to any degree, or not, for climate change, does NOT matter to those who believe it is so. They are on a course of action that WILL make energy so EXPENSIVE that the average income earning household will be reduced to choosing between energy and health care, or maybe neither? There is going to be CHANGE alright, energy for your house WILL be up by 25% or more, when you consider the TAX dollars that will be pumped into these energy sources to make them a profitable venture, for a politically connected few. Fuel for transportation, after they shut down most of the domestic sources (Alaskan Pipeline for starters) will at best be sufficiently available at a price 4 or 5 times higher then the past peak prices, to those who can afford it, which won't be many! or at worst will only be a part of "remember when you could buy gas everywhere and drive all the way to...." And the folks who are using horse and buggy for transportation, windmills to pump water etc will be laughing their asses off at the rest of us.. 
The current economic conditions will not improve if we continue down this course. We need to fix the economy FIRST. With 18% of the work force out of work, a little over 10% collecting unemployment, (which is temporary, and will end at some time) there is almost 1/5 of the US work force with NO INCOME soon, and another estimated 10% to 20% earning 25% to 50% less then they were. You add in inflation due to the devalued dollar that will cut your spending anther few % points. 
Sorry but climate change is not even a "blip on the radar" 
Jeff
No more hobbies....unless one runs their locomotives on COAL!! BTW- coal might become the one resource that is the wild card in all of this: damn if we do and damn if we don't (coal powered cars, I think BMW did a version a while back). Maybe a bike business might be something to invest in, just think about it- China (once bikes were a major mode of transport) buying lots of cars and the US headed in the opposite direction by your scenario- biking to and from. I hope that the economy will right itself soon but like the climate it is cyclical requiring time...but your are correct- fix economy first (as the saying goes...it's the economy, stupid), take care of the problems at home then save the world.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Its hard to hear the "Against" side of the global warming issue when so much of the wacko media has fallen in line "For" this issue. Finally, scientist on the "Against" side are not feeling as threatened to speak out about what a hoax this really is.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

In 1980 the German translation of Global 2000, an American study, appeared in German translation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_2000_Report_to_the_President 

I never trusted Goverment studies very much. They picture they painted of the near future is overtaken already by todays reality. 
But at least those 1500 pages worldwide woke quite a few people up and they got engaged in enviromental projects. 

Enjoy you trains, as long as you still can afford it 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

yes Fritz, i remember that thick book very well. 
it was my economic/ecologic bible during about 20 years. 

i worked as enviroment-friendly as i could. had a very low oil-using profile. 
(even used horses instead of mashines where ever possible)
i even ran my trains with wind-generated electricity for a while...
and? more or less nothing of the predictions came true. 
i could be a lot better off, if i hadn't believed that bull.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Deleted


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I thought you were done with this, Dwight, because you didn't want it to get too political?

Meanwhile, Al Gore is not a scientist, and Al Gore has no bearing on or makes no addition to or subtraction from the scientific evidence.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

NY Times- A solution...
Dr. McKitrick is in the skeptical camp himself and has published critiques of the past warming trends reported at weather stations on the earth’s surface (like the data now being re-examined after the much-publicized hacking of e-mail messages and files of British climate scientists) and his proposal is:



To end this political stalemate, Dr. McKitrick proposes calling each side’s bluff. He suggests imposing financial penalties on carbon emissions that would be set according to the temperature in the earth’s atmosphere. The penalties could start off small enough to be politically palatable to skeptical voters. 


If the skeptics are right and the earth isn’t warming, then the penalties for burning carbon would stay small or maybe even disappear. But if the climate modelers and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are correct about the atmosphere heating up, then the penalties would quickly, and automatically, rise.


“Either way we get a sensible outcome,” Dr. McKitrick argues. “The only people who lose will be those whose positions were disingenuous, such as opponents of greenhouse policy who claim to be skeptical while privately believing greenhouse warming is a crisis, or proponents of greenhouse gas emission cuts who neither understand nor believe the I.P.C.C. projections, but invoke them as a convenient argument on behalf of policies they want on other grounds even if global warming turns out to be untrue.”

The revenues from a carbon tax might be refunded to the public, as Dr. McKitrick and others have suggested, or the money might be spent developing low-carbon energy sources, as recommended in the journal Nature by two economists from McGill University, Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green. After comparing different climate-change strategies for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, they recommend committing at least $100 billion per year to energy research and development by dedicating the revenues from a global carbon tax.

Thus, like the shift from industrial age to the information age/space age, new jobs would be create thus helping the economy. Since the US is one of the biggest producers of green house gases stands to reason we would be investing in ourselves, our futures and our children. 




Trusting Nature NYTimes


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Dr. McKitrick's idea seems to be fair enough.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I thought you were done with this, Dwight, because you didn't want it to get too political?You're absolutely correct Mike. It was poor judgement on my part to have posted that. I've deleted it, and I offer my apologies to everyone for my lapse.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

As a regular reader of these forums, I for one accept your apology Dwight. As you know, I would never get political around here or get on a soap box.


----------

