if c02 has risen by 65 ppm in the last 40 years

Post #322,566 by boxley 3/9/10 9:01:04 AM Reply	if c02 has risen by 65 ppm in the last 40 years and to reach 550 we need another 182 at the current rate that adds up to 120 years so 2130 is where it hits, but we are working on mitigation as we speak. Patents are being issued, companies going public in the next 5 years that will be busily sequestering c02 so I think it will take a lot longer to get to 550 than 2130 If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,567 by drook 3/9/10 9:49:42 AM Reply	And why are those companies doing that work? -- Drew
Post #322,575 by boxley 3/9/10 11:48:13 AM Reply	because they are AGW folks and want to make a dollar as well why does anyone do any work? To get paid If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,598 by drook 3/9/10 2:14:10 PM Reply	Let's see if I've got this straight 1. There is no global warming (hereafter "GW"). 2. If there is GW, there's no evidence that it's man-made. 3. If GW is man-made, the coal industry's got nothing to do with it. 4. Whether or not coal is implicated, GW can't be stopped or slowed. 5. If GW can be stopped or slowed, any such measures would cost too much. 6. Besides, what evidence is there that GW is necessarily a bad thing? Carbon dioxide is good for plants! Carbon dioxide means a greener world! And now ... 7. In any case, the problem -- not that there is one -- is already being addressed by companies sequestering carbon. So we don't need government programs to pay anyone to do anything. (Please don't notice that those companies sequestering carbon are doing it because of existing government programs.) -- Drew
Post #322,600 by boxley 3/9/10 2:31:49 PM Reply	beating the straw man with the red herring again? I did not post any of your assertions 1-6 7 is a bogus premise made upon a false assertion payment for carbon sequestering is fine. Payment to algore and swiss banks for 3rd world dictators is not. The second was/is the copenhagen plan If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,602 by drook 3/9/10 2:59:36 PM Reply	Cap and trade is trying to appease Republicans If someone proposes that the government pay directly for a specific solution to a problem, "free market" supporters argue that central planning doesn't work. Cap and trade has always been a bastardized mess designed to "allow the market to find the best solution". If someone proposed a way to directly pay companies to reduce emissions and/or increase sequestration, it would get shot down on a strict party-line vote. -- Drew
Post #322,627 by Silverlock 3/9/10 9:50:11 PM Reply	Herein you see the issue "Payment to algore" If Gore is for it, Box is against it. Science doesn't enter into it at all.
Post #322,629 by boxley 3/9/10 10:01:22 PM Reply	if gore wants money for it Im against it science be damned If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,631 by Silverlock 3/9/10 10:04:07 PM Reply	Point made.

Welcome to IWETHEY!