Destroy is a big word, the planet is bigger.

I just don't understand how anyone can discount a position on global warming when the chief spokeswoman was named after an Otter Pop.

Absolutely agree. And of course there is BILLIONS more being spent on 'studying' and 'proving' AGW than on anything else. Thanks for making my point.

Bob you keep making that tobacco reference from what 40 years ago?

And he was also a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. Go figure.

Actually, most of the money has been coming from Koch and industry people. Universities are generally non-profit.

Not really. Heritage was putting out crap tobacco "research" as late as the 1990's. They work for the highest corporate bidder. At the time it was Big Tobacco. Today it's Big Oil. Same stuff, different day.

Are you in the camp that says the world is too big for us to damage? Or the camp which holds that God won't let us?

Do you believe that we have any responsibilities at all to our planet and environment?

Lol! I love it. At least she wasn't named Strawberry Short Kook.

I am kinda new to this area of the Café but I just want to say that Bob Cassidy is my friggen hero!!!

The truth will set you free baby.

Now I'm gonna go watch Billy Jack on my VCR... another here with a cool hat

So this is one of the times it is ok to attack the messenger?

From what little I've read, he quite enjoys attention.

Apparently so. The ICPP hasn't even issued its full report yet and already it's being attacked by the anti-AGW extremists and Big Oil lackeys.

Common sense indicates that global warning is a reality - as does the majority scientific community.

Reinventing the entire universe is something the GOP is great at doing.

Lets dumb everyone down - lets dumb kids down especially - so that corporate American can enjoy the "free" market.

Hey, I'm sure there are some scientists out there that could testify in court (for a fee of course) that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Is American a better place where everyone should be dumbed down?

Global warming isn't real.

Obamacare = death panels.

Obama is a job killer (he lies!).

Lowering taxes even more for the corporations & wealthy will increase job hiring (many corporations pay no taxes anyway)

Food stamps are a freeloader giveaway (you try to live on $4.50 of food a day)

On and on... the sky is always changing colors when the GOP and their followers interpret the data.

There's a difference between global warming and Global Warming.

Perhaps not for those who are certain their beliefs should be accepted as truth with a capital t - who sometimes even express their confidence in capital letters, highlighter and rhetoric that presupposes more than persuades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on......4585503/

[T]here is an efficient, fair way to reduce carbon footprints without throwing economies into reverse. It is one that is not impossibly complicated and prone to abuse like carbon-credit trading, or based on command-and-control regulations, such as milking taxpayers to subsidize renewable energy. It is carbon taxes. They are quietly being introduced by governments in North America, Europe and Asia, although not quickly enough. Given their relative simplicity and effectiveness, they ought to be ubiquitous.

More than a few prominent scientists and economists, among them Paul Ekins, director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources at University College of London, and Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa, think British Columbia’s carbon tax is a fine model. “The design of that carbon tax was the best in the world,” Mr. Ekins said in an interview.

The B.C. carbon tax applies to all fuels, from gasoline to propane, at the point of sale. It was launched in July, 2008 as the main effort in the province’s campaign to drop emissions by one-third by 2020. The tax was designed to be “revenue neutral” – that is, all the income it raised would be offset by reduced taxes elsewhere – and it was introduced gradually. By 2012, the tax per litre of gasoline was seven cents.

A study led by Mr. Elgie found that in the first four years of the carbon tax, B.C. fuel consumption fell 17.4 per cent per capita, and 18.8 per cent compared with the rest of Canada. In the first three years, the province’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 11 per cent (more recent data are not available). If all this were not good enough, B.C.’s economy did not get clobbered, either. Since the tax was introduced, its gross domestic product has kept pace with the rest of Canada.

The tax does not take an army of bureaucrats to administer and was relatively cheap to introduce. It went from concept to reality in a mere five months.

The IPCC report will receive a barrage of criticism from the climate-change skeptics. They will dismiss the report as a fraud or a hoax because of the declining rate of warming; never mind that the planet is warming. They will ignore the data that reveal an alarming increase in natural catastrophes, such as floods. They will condemn carbon taxes as yet another tax grab, even if they are revenue neutral. B.C.’s fine example of a tax that helps the planet, yet neither hurts taxpayers nor growth, will fail to sway them.

[More at the link.]

Not even in the same ball park Bob. And I would have thought you were smart enough to realize that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20......ysteria/

"According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. " And that's just in the US!

Yes, please follow the money.

Well if we're going to start making snide comments like "I thought you were smart enough...", I see no point in responding. You pay little attention to facts or science anyway.

Ask the Kochs where their money goes.

Apparently so. The ICPP hasn't even issued its full report yet and already we're getting news articles claiming how much worse it is than we thought. (See the OP if you somehow missed it.)

Of course in Bob's mind it's OK to quote the report that hasn't been released if it supports his beliefs but not to comment on it if it doesn't. Hypocritical any?