Desperate warmists and weather reports

Please remember that the carbon (CO2) balance in the biosphere is not involved in the AGW dispute. Plants and animals grow and absorb CO2, then die and release it. No net change. The measured increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from releasing the carbon from so-called "fossil fuels" (and limestone). That said, the increase in atmospheric CO2 does not seem to be the major forcing function of global temperature that it was thought to be two or three decades ago when the current climate models were being conjured.

I wonder how much of these fires could have been avoided if brush clearing was allowed? Perhaps we need a CO2 tax on environmentalist?
CA now is going to require a Warming Sticker on new cars. All this tripe is another way to legitimize the notion of GW.
The UK is seeking food limits and regulation of grocery stores. NY banned Trans Fats.
Next is housing and power consumption.
I predict within 10 years we are told what to eat, where to live, how large of a house we can have (or they will tax you for being over your alloted sq footage), what to drive and also rationing of fuel.
Next will be power rationing and food regulations. Expect taxes on fast food, eating out.
It appears were all going to wake up one day and wonder what happened to Freedom... It left without so much as a whimper.
Sheep Nations

Forest fires are carbon neutral provided that the forests are allowed to regrow or are replanted. If they are replanted for timber that is buried or otherwise not combusted, they can even act as a net carbon sink.

Tim Ball? Are you kidding?

The conservative movement needs to abandon the crippling ignorance and outright hostility to science it has harbored for the last few decades. There are many informed conservative opinions about climate change that don't suffer from ideological blinders to the scientific side of the issue. It's a shame that sites such as American Thinker give time to trash like this instead of taking the fight to the policy proposals, which is what all of the science denial is really about in the first place.

Let's all demand a "Global Warmist - Hold Your Breath Day"

Perhaps we can weed out the gene pool that way.

Cheers

Isn't there any way to prove this global warming and carbon emissions impact on so called global warming is a hoax instead of waiting 20 years ?

16 cubic feet of CO2 is produced for every 100 pounds of wood burned.

skorrent:

very simple.
where did the carbon in the so called "fossil fuels" come from?

if things live and die and there is no net gain or loss over time, of carbon????

hint: living things are not the only things that cycle carbon.

Jon,

The "liberal" movement needs to abandon it's smug self-righteousness and allow scientific inquiry into its own sacred cows. Conservatives have no problem with real science; it's the bogus untested nonsense that arises from faulty, incomplete computer models that worries us. Every prediction made by global warming alarmists has proven false. The human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is so small as to be almost negligible. Water vapor is a much greater contributor to the trapping of earthly gasses.
It's not American Thinker's job to take the fight to policy proposals; that's the job of animate sentient beings. AT is a website and as such is here to inform. And since there are plenty of sites that spew nothing but liberal misanthropic bias, please spare me the complaints about AT's conservative leanings.

P.S. I'm very conservative and probably better educated in the hard sciences than you (or Al Gore) will ever be.

Let's see, Jon, in reading your reasoned response to Dr. Ball ("Are you kidding?") and your dismissal of the 30,000 scientists who don't support the anthropogenic global warming theory in a public statement, you failed to mention YOUR scientific credentials.

"There are many informed...opinions about climate change that don't suffer from ideological blinders to the scientific side of the issue."

Now, were these climate change opinions formed while sitting in giant air-conditioned rooms munching popcorn and slurping soda watching enormous screens projecting photoshopped catastrophic environmental doom and gloom?

As for fire burning trees...it doesn't require science to understand that for billions of years Mother Nature has never shown an iota of gratitude or remorse towards that which She destroys or rebuilds; humans are of little consequence to Her superior firepower.

In order for humans to survive Her massive force of Nature humans evolved in their environment; instead of turning trees into ash, humans turn them into heating, housing, paper, clothes and artful carvings. And, we also replant.

As for Science, it now says tofu is bad for you if your brains cells are old.

Jon, typical leftist reply to a factual and logical attack on Saint Goreacle. Provide no substance but an ad hominem attack. We're WAY past the time to corral you leftists on the Left Coast and leave you to your own devices THERE!

My mom grew up on a farm in East Texas, she said every year a slow burning fire would meander through the forest taking out all the grass and underbrush, it didn't bother the trees. I'll bet it looked like a park back then, now the same forest is so thick with underbrush you can't walk through it, and any spark will set the whole forest to burning.

At least in Texas we can still harvest our trees, every ten years we sell our pine trees, you don't have to replant, they grow like weeds in ten years they are ready to cut again. And since land owners are allowed to do this, these open areas will stop a forest fire from spreading. You'll notice Texas is not in the news very often concerning forest fires. It just shows if you let land owners have the freedom to use their property as they see fit things just work out better. Think how many homes could have been built with all the timber going up in flames in California.

Are we really this smart? Thirty years ago it was Global Cooling. Now, the rage is Global Warming.

I say that humans, with their ability to think and question, create their own problems real or imagined.

So are we really that important and in control of our environment, lives and destinies? I don't think so.

These climate fascists are either terrifying or hilarious. I can't decide which. It's like the entire GW movement is one big performance art piece of dark satire with the high concept of what if the Nazi's had been tree huggers.

Of course, the "final solutio" to Global Warming must be the end of the most common source of carbon on the planet - all living organisms. Only by removing life from Earth can it be saved!

These climate fascists are either terrifying or hilarious. I can't decide which. It's like the entire GW movement is one big performance art piece of dark satire with the high concept of what if the Nazi's had been tree huggers.

Of course, the "final solutio" to Global Warming must be the end of the most common source of carbon on the planet - all living organisms. Only by removing life from Earth can it be saved!

I didn't know there was a conservative opinion about science which includes global warming issues. Traditionally, in real science, the position is one of skepticism. How do skeptics approach the advocates when they are scathingly abused as "deniers"? Of course, we know that holocaust deniers are trying to deny something that happened. Global warming of the anthropogenic variety is not much about what has happened but about modeling forecasts by govt-funded interests. That govt-funding has lucratively increased 10-20 fold at least in the last decade, to many billions of dollars (like an industry?). I think it is government funding which implicitly requires finding problems even if not indubitably there that is at the core of the conservative skeptics complaint?

I have been shopping for a wood stove recently (since up here in NH the propane I use for heat has gone up from $2.29/gal last year to $3.29/gal this year). I note that a lot of the stove manufacturers tout wood as "carbon neutral". I wonder who in the heck decides this... could peat or lignite coal be carbon neutral... or are they just a little too "old"... Another example of age discrimination perhaps?

How many liberals and warmists have flat screen television sets?
Do they realize that the gas used in the sets' manufacture, a greenhouse gas called nitrogen trifluoride, is 17,000 times more potent than CO2? Let's see them demonstrate to stop its manufacture and bring back the 19-inch tabletop TV set, all to prevent global warming. At the very least, they could lobby for it to be regulated under Kyoto, which it currently is not. How much of this gas is released into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process? Al Gore?

Interested in Jon's comments which seem to indicate if you don not believe in the GW hysteria or at least man's hand it you are rejecting science. There are plenty of scientists who are not sure, there are many folks whose business is the climate that believe it is bunk and others that are not sure. It seems to me that the only people closed to any contervailing arguments are GW proponents themselves. I sould say here look at the profit motives grants and so forth but I think while that drives somethings the more important issue is man trying to control nature. The arguments from the academy are often not inclusive but then is multiculturalism really inclusive. The same logic used there apllys to the comment relative to those of us who do not see carbon as bad, do not think climate change is unnatural or will be a catastrophe and thnk we are wasting a lot benefits for few taken from many.

It is really quite simple - just make wild fires and volcanoes illegal.

The USA would have never been accused of "polluting" in the first place if it had continued to build reactors after 1979, but after the TMI accident, not a single reactor has been built in America, so America's emissions of CO2 have significantly increased while France's emissions have significantly dipped.
America's electric sector is almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels. If it had been powered by nuclear fuel, emissions would've been miniscule.

``Plants and animals grow and absorb CO2, then die and release it. No net change. ''

There's the answer to the crisis. Burn wood, not oil.

Here is interesting article in the National Review Online today about how Wikipedia does not allow other points of view on global warming: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=
"Tim Ball? Are you kidding?" Hey Jon: Did you know that Al Gore failed both divinity and law school, and that he never studied science? Al Gore and B.H. Obama are worried about rising sea level. I have a scientific experiment for you. Put ice cubes in a glass and fill it the rest of the way with water. Now leave it at room temperature and wait ice to melt and for the glass to overflow. David Suzuki, our number one propagandist on global warming here in Canada, is a zoologist, not a climatologist. He should defer to Dr. Tim Ball on all matters to do with the climate. I have only one friend who is an expert in the field, studied here at University of Toronto and has his PhD in atmospheric physics. He can't believe all this anthropogenic global warming nonsense. There is no scientific consensus, just media demagoguery.