Comments on: Debating Global Warming Policy

By: Liftchair

Liftchair — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:27:11 +0000

I am glad for the spirit with which you deal w/ opposing views on the distinction of human beings from those who would think that we are in the chain of evolution. Thank yo for dealing graciously with those who oppose and finding common groud on which we can agree and building dialogue and unity. How very important it is to seek truth and to help others to know there is truth out there and to strive together to find truth in all matters. This can be outset of bringing others to the ultimate and crucial Truth of Jesus Christ.

By: NLP TRAINING

NLP TRAINING — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:27:11 +0000

By: polar_bear

polar_bear — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:27:17 +0000

Very good essays, thanks

By: Unlockiphone

Unlockiphone — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:34:12 +0000

Well known CNN personality Lou Dobbs is putting his foot down and making a clear stand on global warming. Not only The Huffington Post but apparently (it appears) CNN is softening it's stance on global warming. A quickly cooling earth is debating quite successfully with Al Gore. Al Gore avoided debating Václav Klaus. But he can't run from the earth. The earth is winning the debate!

By: haircolor

haircolor — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:32:06 +0000

I hate to say it but humans are our own worst enemy… we are greedy by nature… the burning of fossil fuels is one of the leading contributers to global warming and at the same time is one of the biggest financial industries in the world… because of the huge amounts of money involved the energy companies have a huge influence on any decisions made by governments… money makes the world go round and whilst everybody is still using and paying for fossil fuels that is never going to change. Governments will not convert to clean energy because they wiould loose the money given to them (both under and over the table) by the large energy companies… the clean energy companies dont have as much money to offer and simply cannot compete. Of course the governments do little things here and there to try and stem the flow of the environmentalists, but that is all they are, gestures.. They really have no interest in making the world better because its not cost effective for them… Its the way of the world im afraid and our children, and our childrens children will encounter the same problem.

By: Alexjr

Alexjr — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:11:41 +0000

No need to debate, we must save our Earth NOW !! URGENT !! DISASTER EVERYWHERE !!

By: eq2 gold

eq2 gold — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:03:26 +0000

I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's debate over whether it's man-made or naturally caused…,” the president told reporters in June, hours after an extreme thunderstorm felled an elm tree to the ground just outside his White House door.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:44:38 +0000

I hate it when arguers don't respond to each other's points; that is, when they bring up other points. That is a signal failing of the Cato discussion (and so many others).

Give me closure!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:10:11 +0000

Not being qualified to talk about global warming policy I won't say anything about that. But, I do know an good haircut when I see one and I really think, Will, that you should go back to the short haircut. Maybe now that you're out in middle America you think you need the young republican who's been to busy to get to the barber for a few months look but I think we all, including you, will be happier if you go back to the shorter look. I know I always am happier when I do so, even though it's usually sloth that keeps me from keeping my own hair from looking good.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:57:29 +0000

I hope cato decides to bundle this debate into the next cato journal. It would be wonderful to have this all in one place and in portable print form. Regardless, I am going to make a point of reading this debate. Thanks for the links Will.

By: Matt McIntosh

Matt McIntosh — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:26:09 +0000

One thing I don't see discussed is that the IPCC estimates assume more fossil fuels will be burned than we actually appear to have based on current best estimates. Dave Rutledge from Caltech has a pretty info-dense post on this (link below) with some nice graphs -- re-running the simulations he came up with a figure at the extreme low end of the IPCC estimates, with a CO2 peak of 460 ppm around 2070 resulting in a global temperature increase peaking at only 1.8 degrees around 2150.

So far as I know he's the first to stop and take an empirical approach to this parameter in the models. If he's even close to being right then the climate change threat is being overstated significantly and the "peak oil" problem understated correspondingly.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697