In Climate Change Debate, It's All About Jobs

Dkvkbfjz

NeMzYH

Now is the time to create new jobs!

The conversation around climate change focuses on jobs for good reason: The United States—particularly the Midwest—stands to gain millions of new jobs if we take action and increase investments in renewable “made in America” energy sources like wind and solar.

The bottom line is we can advance a new clean energy platform that grows the economy and confronts climate change. So says a coalition of Fortune 500 companies, including Caterpillar, G.E., and Dow Chemical.

Check it out: http://www.us-cap.org/

With the right policies and investments, millions of additional jobs can be protected and grown as we create world-leading highly efficient transportation and manufacturing industries and products. These economic opportunities include research positions to develop new technologies and millions of skilled-labor jobs to broadly deploy them. The vast majority of jobs created by clean energy technologies are standard jobs for accountants, engineers, computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers, and mechanics.

On the other hand, delaying action on clean energy will only further our dependence on foreign oil. It plays into the hands of the foreign oil countries and oil, gas and coal companies that have too much control over our energy choices. America needs a new energy plan right now to build a clean energy future that revives our economy, reduces our dependency on foreign oil, and protects our planet from global warming.

Humans are part of nature

Like it or not (and apparently environmental extremists along with right wing conservatives do not), humans are classified as animals, are here and since we exist, we have an impact on the environment everywhere we are - good, bad or indifferent. Along with the religious view of global warming, people should consider the historical perspective of human hubris when it comes to "nature". It is now a religion by the way, because it requires utter faith in the IPCC and not any scientific principle, like say, a proven theory ("Case closed, debate is over" is not how science is supposed to work). The name itself implies it: "anthropogenic global warming". It's all about us. We must be at the center of the solar system, and we must be the cause of everything we see around us, it can' possibly be a natural cycle. WORSE yet, we think we can "fix" it. What percentage of those much heralded computer models on the global climate have been validated? Is every single factor that can have an effect on the closed system of global climate accounted for? NO? What percent probability of accuracy are the models? Is the percentage of accuracy less than the temperatures deemed needed to get us to the tipping point? Do they take into account, say CLOUDS, or wildfires? The SUN (cycles)? No. And yet we we think we know what to do? The point is, throughout history humans have decided they know just enough to be able to tweak nature to our liking. The historical record is filled with examples of how these attempts failed. Of course the obvious rebuttal to this is that now we know so much more. Really? In my experience, most things, once peeled open, reveal more about how little we actually know than provide answers to the original question. It's always a matter of guessing when we know just enough to get it right instead of making things worse. I'm sure if you could travel back and ask each one of the experts of their day if they were absolutely certain that introducing one unnatural element into an environment wouldn't have even worse consequences, they would each say yes. Good intentions, and all that. Besides the cost in dollars, doesn't anybody worry that an unintentional side effect of an active attempt to slow or reverse CO2, methane, water vapor, etc., will trigger something more immediate and worse? I've read plenty of reports of plans that were almost tried by groups with such narrow focus, and it took other experts to call them on the catastrophic impact they would cause. Already, evidence is showing that by reducing some particulate emissions, we're increasing the "green house" effect. So we concentrate on the little things we think we can control, which is less than 1% of the total "green house" gases. We could be spending the money on better agricultural methods, feeding the poorer nations, or helping them leap-frog the need to clear cut forests or jungles (oh yeah - to make room to grow "bio-fuels" more cheaply). And on….

Man--made global warming is a hoax

More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

Not Much Known About Atmospheric CO2. Do Not Waste Money

Climate is complex. Try to find consensus figures on what the temperature will be at each level of atmospheric CO2 over time. This is a stab in the dark. It is very difficult to assign a worth to reduction if one does not have a very good estimate of the impact of the reduction. We may in fact be beyond a tipping point with large increases in temperature no matter what we do.

That we have 'control' over fixing the climate is a leap.

At this point we should look for large reductions in CO2 for low cost especially through conservation. What about capturing the waste natural gas at wells? Maybe we should spend money on dealing with the rising temperatures rather than perhaps wasting money trying to fix the climate.

It's the economy stupid!

Now is not the time to play games and guess what the result of what may be unnecessary programs may be. If the President wants to take the blame for a disastrous entension of this recession, then he is welcome to it. But, the rest of will be the ones suffering. I'm sure he will keep the Oval Office at a nice comfortable temperature no matter what the rest of us have to do.