BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

US climate change bill: Your reaction

09:01 UK time, Wednesday, 12 May 2010

A major bill aimed at reducing America's reliance on foreign oil and fighting global warming has been unveiled by US senators. What should the US do about climate change?

After healthcare reform, passing a climate change law is Mr Obama's biggest legislative priority.

Senator John Kerry revealed that the bill proposes cutting US carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 - it also includes provisions for relaxing rules on offshore oil-drilling, a highly controversial subject in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Does the climate change bill cover all the important factors? What should President Obama do about oil drilling, power generation and carbon emissions? How will the bill affect you?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 8

  • Comment number 1.

    First thing they should do is resolve not to listen to the denialist conspiranoia.

  • Comment number 2.

    To be fair, being that the US is also the grand capital of climate change skepticism it'll be a miracle if he can make any meaningful changes at all.

    To put into perspective what he's up against, i recently came accross someone, in an American forum arguing that the BP oil spill was a lot of fuss about nothing because oil is a 100% product of nature and therefore could not adversely affect the environment.

  • Comment number 3.

    Reject taking action on MMCC until the cause is proven, if its ever proven. Research into renewables is still valid. MMCC diverted funds to be reinstated to tackling real polution such as the oil tanker problem and other damage preventing measures.

    If the US is similar to the UK, a lot could be saved by not throwing away money on useless 'solutions' to a manufactured problem.

  • Comment number 4.

    Less hot air from Obama would be a good start............

  • Comment number 5.

    To pre-empt the usual suspects who claim MMCC is a myth and a scam:

    What's a myth?

    That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
    That mankind's activities have increased its atmospheric concentration by 30% since 1750 and is continuing to rise by about 2% a year?
    That adding more greenhouse gases must, unless basic physics is wrong, retain heat and so cause global temperatures to rise?

    It is a myth that it is a myth, perpetuated by creationist leaning, scientifically illerate, self centred people who would rather do all they can to deny it so they can happily continue their lifestyle whilst leaving future genetations to sort out the mess.

    I suggest you read something like:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

    or

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

    Even Exxonmoibil: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx

    If you have real evidence that the science is wrong take it up with NASA.

    If you seriously think there is a massive global conspiracy going on which allies such strange bedfollows as eco-loonies, the vast majority of scientists, every national science academy, 192 governments (of all political complexions), all oil and energy companies, global companies in many industries (many "threatened" by climate change), all mainstream political parties AND no-one is breaking ranks on the conspiracy, you are seriously deluded.

    None of these doubt the science on climate change. Some may doubt how serious it will get and how fast and others may doubt whether policies can be adopted that make a difference and keep our lifestyles. That's what should be being debated in the US Climate Chnage Bill: whether the policies are realistic and implementable and strike the right balance, not whether MMCC is real. The latter has been "proven" beyond reasonable doubt. Predictions and policies can and should be debated, but the fundamental science is robust.

    What the sceptics consistently fail to recognise is that if they put forward another explanation for the observed rapid climate change over the last 100 years or so, they must also explain why the 30% rise in CO2 levels since 1750, largely attributed to burning of fossil fuels and change in land use, hasn't retained heat as basic physics says it must. Greenhouse gas physics has been well understood for over 100 years and if sceptic scientists have discovered some new properties of greenhouse gases that have eluded other scientists then they must present the evidence and present it for the scrutiny of the scientific method, which includes a rigorous peer review process. At the moment we have a well documented rise in CO2 levels that can be shown to be from burning fossil fuels; we have a proven rise in temperatures globally; we have an agent (CO2), a mechanism (greenhouse effect) so it hangs together scientifically. CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation. This can be measured in the laboratory. It can be measured by pointing instruments at the sky. And the emission, and effects of its absorption, is measured continuously by weather satellites orbiting the Earth.

    The sceptics I do hear about actually aren't debating the premise that manmade CO2 is changing the climate. What they are debating is whether we should do anything about it and what the effective mitigation strategies should be if we do. What is clear is that demand for fossil fuels is going to continue to increase this century, leading to insecurity of supply. If we are to maintain our standards of living, then alternatives must be found and those alternatives need to be low CO2 sources. Rather than debate the science that most of us are not actually qualified to do, we should debate the correction, mitigation and adaptation strategies that affect us all, recognising we are mere custodians of the planet, not its owners.

    Many of the sceptics here are treating the scientific debate like courtroom or debating society debate: use rhetoric to put forward all sorts of argument to obfuscate the real evidence. They dance from one argument to another suggesting a lawyer's concern to win the case rather than establish the truth. Their courtroom style argument for the defence seems to be that their client isn't doing it, but even if he is doing it's harming nobody, and even if it is harming anyone it cannot be stopped.

    They have every right to assert their opinions. They are right that scientific predictions of future climate change from computer models are inherently unreliable and right to warn that market-led solution to climate change may not work. But neither of these is to be celebrated nor reasons to doubt the established science that manmade CO2 has largely caused the currently observed climate change and will continue to do so.

    Lastly, I would far rather be taken for a fool by future generations because we acted and the science was wrong, than be vilified by them for not acting when we manifestly should have.

  • Comment number 6.

    Hear (sic) we go again.

    Can we stop going on about our favorite option, stop and smell the flowers.

    The drive for a climate change bill was emasculated last year after the failure of Copenhagen and the climategate e-mail scandel.

    It is no suprise for me, an environmental realist who has never believed in MMCC, that we no longer hear in the media any more alarmist stories about dying polar bears, disappearing ice etc.

    We have just had one of the coldest winters in my 60 years, its the middle of May and I can see frost on the grass when I walk the dog each morning.

    I do not care what is in this bill, it doesnt matter if it goes over the top and stops the US economy, or if it's a facade and doen't do anything at all.

    I am not afraid, repeat, I AM NOT AFRAID.

    The warmists cannot frighten, intimidate, or argue their point anymore.

    This parrot is dead, if it wasn't nailed to the perch (this bill) it would be pushing up the daisies.

    This is an ex-parrot.

    This is an ex-idea.

    This is an ex-bill.

  • Comment number 7.

    Until they start developing cars which either getting far more miles to the gallon or, even better, don't use fossil fuel at all, any other attempts at reducing their 'carbon footprint' are going to be futile. The answers have been known to scientists and developers for years now, but unfortunately oil is a big business and they're not going to go down without a fight - as they've proven with the two illegal wars currently being fought.

  • Comment number 8.

    a total ban on new carbon fuel exploration licenses

  • Comment number 9.

    "First thing they should do is resolve not to listen to the denialist conspiranoia."

    This comment sums up the whole AGW movement, no dissent permitted, no attempt to follow the scientific method by testing theories, just do as we tell you. If there was real confidence in AGW then skepticism would be welcomed and raw data shared.

  • Comment number 10.

    When Health Bill took soo long in spite of Democrats in the majority, imagine Climate Change Bill .....sooooooooooo long.

  • Comment number 11.

    Europe totally failed to lead the way in Copenhagen so I guess its now up to the USA. It's a bit like waiting for the alcoholic to stand up and state 'I am an alcoholic'. Can America stand up and say 'I am a polluter'? If so then maybe the rest of the world can follow suit. The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Maxico may focus attention.

  • Comment number 12.

    Interesting to hear Professor James Lovelock (the father of “Gaia Theory”) yesterday:

    “Prof. Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.
    Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data".“

    See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594545.stm

  • Comment number 13.

    The very first thing that George W. Bush did when he became president was to announce that he was abandoning America's Kyoto commitments. Obama must legislate in such a way that cannot easily be undone or brushe aside by the likes of Palin.

  • Comment number 14.

    The main push should be towards investment in the development of greener and more efficient technologies. While the only solution is to ask people to give up the level of convinience of modern living that they are used to, there will always be resentment and no real progress will be achieved.

    What is needed is replacement technologies, greener cars that are just as large and responsive to drive, solar street lights, more efficient electronics, renuable power generation. It is a big ask and harder than guilt tripping people into sorting their rubbish but the only long term solution. It should (but won't) also contain a commitment to the space industry, a single satellite can replace a whole ground bassed communications network, run for circa 15 years on just solar power and the launch polution is equivalent to just 1 transatlantic flight.

  • Comment number 15.

    The American people do not show any sign of taking responsibility for their own pollution so we will be lucky to see any kind of bill.

  • Comment number 16.

    To 5. James T Kirk

    About a month ago (maybe 2) there was a total acceptance that soot was contributing equal damage as co2 (think it was NASA but may have been IPCC) but the lobby didnt want to distract people from co2 theory. As a result a lot of money is thrown at co2 which is still relying on future technology to fix.

    Yet the soot problem is simple. It is cheap and easy and the technology already exists.

    Last year I pointed out that NASA was investigating soot as the main problem for certain regions. Now they are accepting it as an equal problem but they didnt want people being disheartened after they were spoon fed the lies about co2 theory.

    This in itself shows recklessness of the lobby to choose for us, especially when we are in recession.

  • Comment number 17.

    The United States must push through The Climate Change Bill.
    Why?
    Real progress at the Cancun Climate Change Summit in December depends on it.
    EU Climate Chief, Connie Hedegaard said that the EU "would be ready" to sign up for a new climate treaty at the end of this year if the United States would mandate cuts in greenhouse emissions. The continued ssilence from the United States is a key obstacle.
    Her statements came as climate legislation seems unlikely to pass Congress this year.
    On Wednesday, US Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) are expected to unveil their stalled bill. The legislation is expected to offer an emissions-reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, about 4% below 1990 levels. That goal is in line with a commitment made by the Obama Administration last year.
    The bill is rumoured to contain provisions for allowing offshore oil and gas exploration (and if you're going to explore, doesn't that mean you're planning to drill?).
    In light of the disaster, several senators are backing off the legislation altogether.
    Hedegaard maintains that if nothing comes out of the entire American excercise, the United States can expect to hear tough talk from their "European friends". When's the last time any "friend" talked tough to the United States? This in itself may be a sign of progress.
    As we all know the Copenhagen Accord was not good enough.
    Global climate negotiations are on the rocks, even without the seemingly endless delay in the United States.
    The Copenhagen Accord ended with a three-page accord that sets a goal to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. The document was noted by the UN at the 11th hour and has absolutely no legal standing. This allows countries to set their own carbon targets.
    Here's an eye-popper: Estimates from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research - the greenhouse gas reduction pledges from wealthy nations would lead to a global temperature rise of 3 degrees by the end of this century.
    To date, more than 120 nations have formally "associated" with the Copenhagen Document. The world now needs a "binding agreement".
    Developing nations worry the Copenhagen Accord is being used by the wealthy nations to prolong negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). More importantly, they believe it would kill off the Kyoto Protocol. Poor nations see the ditching of Kyoto as an end to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," which ensures that wealthy nations carry their full weight. Hedegaard did not deny that attempts were underway by wealthy nations to jettison the 1997 Kyoto Treaty but suggested it was the United States, which never even ratified the treaty — not the EU— that was letting Kyoto die.
    As part of its National Stimulus Law, China is making a $230B investment in green technologies. The US, under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, has plans to pump $80B into national clean energy and efficiency.
    Which country do you think will get it done??

  • Comment number 18.

    1. At 10:14am on 12 May 2010, 23 years 10 months and counting wrote:

    First thing they should do is resolve not to listen to the denialist conspiranoia.

    -------------------------------

    You may need to tell that to the german and russian scientists who have proof (solid, hard, testable evidence) which was stated this year (march) to show that this could be normal climate change (as in its been before, without our helping hands).

    While there are scientists searching for the truth (even if the truth is co2 theory) I will be happy waiting for the truth. While people (gov, media, lobby) spread proven lies to the world I will resist their 'evidence' until it is checked and proven by the non-bias lobby.

  • Comment number 19.

    Population control. Fewer people, less man mand climate change. Simples.

  • Comment number 20.

    Ban private planes, use scheduled only, Obama on a rickety old plane with his nuclear briefcase would be quite amusing! I am not a personal believer in the problem but those who are should suffer the most.

  • Comment number 21.

    "We have just had one of the coldest winters in my 60 years, its the middle of May and I can see frost on the grass when I walk the dog each morning....I am not afraid, repeat, I AM NOT AFRAID."

    Which you're taking as proof against MMCC? So if there are a few days in the 90s this summer you'll no doubt take that as proof that MMCC is for real? Or will they just be "exceptional"? Either way your conclusions are laughably flawed and unscientific. MMCC is about global trends and averages over an extended period not the odd day in May in your back garden. The trend is clear and obvious to anyone who bothers to open their mind. You may not be afraid, but I am. Especially for my children. Imagine millions of displaced people looking for food and water, imagine global local conflict for resources. I'll look you up in 30 years and see how "afraid" you are then.

  • Comment number 22.

    "#1. At 10:14am on 12 May 2010, 23 years 10 months and counting wrote:
    First thing they should do is resolve not to listen to the denialist conspiranoia."

    Open minded as ever!

  • Comment number 23.

    The climate change argument is actually almost entirely irrelevant. The real issue is the dwindling reserve of fossil fuels, so any policies aimed at reducing the consumption of these must be a good idea.

    The price of oil, gas and their derivatives will only go up - perhaps rather sooner than we all hope. Action now will help to soften the shock of peak oil.

  • Comment number 24.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 25.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 26.

    Here we go again. First and foremeost if any kind of so-called climate change legislation is enacted then he along with the rest of congress and the senate should be the first ones to do the sacrificing. Let them be faced with higher energy costs, let them give up their never ending junkets with taxpayer subsidized transportation, let them for once face the consequences of their mindless legislation.

  • Comment number 27.

    The congress should ignore the stupid tax scam and reject the bill entirely.

  • Comment number 28.

    16. At 12:39pm on 12 May 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
    "To 5. James T Kirk

    About a month ago (maybe 2) there was a total acceptance that soot was contributing equal damage as co2 (think it was NASA but may have been IPCC) but the lobby didnt want to distract people from co2 theory. As a result a lot of money is thrown at co2 which is still relying on future technology to fix."

    And soot is produced how? By incomplete combustion, complete combustion resulting in CO2 and H2O, incomplete resulting in soot. Therefore these are two intrinsically link contributors and any future technologies designed for reducing CO2 will be extension reduce soot emmissions.

  • Comment number 29.

    Blank pages.

  • Comment number 30.

    To 5. James T Kirk

    You could check the new scientist mags but no respectable scientist uses them as a reference as they are often wrong (I know you know this but some others dont).

    You could check the IPCC site. You may even find the blatent lies they published as fact for the gov and public. Their site hosted claims, copied from the WWF (non-scientist, hippys, want us all in mud huts) which were total lies that any research (even a non-scientist could manage this) would have highlighted.

    You could look at NASA but since their data was modified using a random shift on the glabal temperature data (apparantly normal to do so) they somehow made an almost flat graph show blazing warming to the contradiction of everyone (even the pro lobby)! Plus their commitment to MMCC co2 theory was only public. In private they blame industrial soot which was (also recent) acknowledged as equally damaging as the co2 predictions!

    You could ask the gov who will show you adverts of drowning dogs, claim we have 50 days to save the earth and even buy into windfarms which is a proven NOT TO WORK technology.

    You could ask climategate but the data may be destroyed before anyone can validate it and no respected scientific method is followed. More than likely they will ignore you like everyone else.

    Alternatively-

    Interesting link which offers the data from both sides. It even notices where the pro lobby gave half the information and then neatly tells you the facts that make a big difference.

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

    Read the interesting alternatives the pro lobby didnt want to talk about-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/25/soot_solution/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/06/warming_low_hanging_fruit/

    The climategate investigation results-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/31/climategate_carry_on/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/01/uk_physics_climate/

    Food and the EU-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/23/veggie_planet_saver_scheme_rubbished/

    IPCC information sources-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/ipcc_rainforest_rubbish_coup_de_grace/

    You could ask the german and russian scientists who found evidence (not a predicted data model with proven failures) that this could be normal-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/global_warming_seen_before/


    We can all put up links forever and a day but there is far more criticism of the pro lobby because of all their lies.

  • Comment number 31.

    25. At 1:01pm on 12 May 2010, rupert wrote:
    I believe it is an absolute disgrace that a comprehensively defeated and humbled Lib Dem party, who clearly have no legitimacy whatsoever in the eyes of the voting public have held the trump card in negotiations regarding the formation and implementation of our new government. The Lib Dem's, as people have apparently forgotten, actually lost seats in this general election, a poorer performance than in 2005 and yet are filling pivotal positions within the new government with little to no experience, but most importantly a mere fraction of the voters support.

    Democracy?

    *********************************************************************

    I expected some strange posts from the AGW gang, but this on takes the biscuit. It's about the "US BILL" - nothing to do with the election.

    Back to topic as a world citizen I hope the Bill is passed, but I fear a long & so process with even more hysterical pronouncements from the anti-Obama side as we saw with the Health Bill.

  • Comment number 32.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 33.

    Any policy without the inclusion and serious mention of sustainable populations is just a factual non runner, a total waste of time, which in the USA case means drastically cutting immigration, both legal and illegal and also persuading familys to NOT have 3/4/5/6/7/8 + kids, whether they can afford them or not.

    In July 1980 the USA population (figures- U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division) was 229,465,250, in July 2009 the population was 307,006,550, which is a rise of over 77.5 million in less than 30 years.

    Since 1960 the world population has grown by around 1.5 billion every 20 years (Data source: World Bank, World Development Indicators ) 1960 = 3,031,692,442, 1980 = 4,444,607,452, 2000 = 6,084,911,264 and these figures are NOT precise figures because so many births and deaths are just NOT recorded or actual figures are manipulated by some governments and not even counted in some countrys because of non governance.

    The reality is that I believe a constantly growing unsustainable population equates to 2 factual outcomes.

    1. Either limited and declining resouces divided among more people which = LESS per person, which also means LESS and less every year and decade while populations continue to grow.

    2.Or wars of resource domination/control/greed and attrition, either- military, economic, financial/digital or agricultural.

    At present the human species is acting like an attrocious and obnoxious world family. Populations act like the most obnoxious child, making imoral/unethical/bad and constant demands for more and more social and materialistic sweeties, and threatening to and actually smashing the house up if they are not met and the parents= governments allowing the child to get its own way and not wanting to confront the threat of violence even though it knows that such behaviour will ultimately lead to much greater destruction.

    Even if USA manages to reduce it's carbon emissions by 50% at todays population rates/levels, in 30 years time this will be totally negated by the continued rise in USA population numbers.

    So far, all the action in the world against climate change, and ALL existing plans for the future, ONLY very slightly reduce TOTAL local emissions in relation to population and do nothing to reverse or facilitate an actual decline in emissions.

    Even if USA reduced its own emissions, it would only result in USA exporting more and more of its emissions to other countrys like China/India, or Mexico/South American countrys, who manufacture increasingly more products for USA. At the end of the day the USA just cannot afford a shift away from manufacturing as has resulted in UK.

    A stark reality is the worlds recent experiences of various economic and financial and environmental bubbles. Behaviour which has ALSO been unsustainable and which warning voices were intellectually genocidally smothered continuously for many years until the bubbles burst, solely because the changes would reult in a decline of (unsustainable)good time growth and result in the (population)kids behaving as mentioned above

    This most recent financial bubble nearly took down the whole world, and ultimately it is just a man made financial paper bubble which can be tweeked and bargained with and reformed, but also which in itself if it had completely burst would have resulted in many many millions of lost lives

    There will be no such opportunity when the population bubble bursts and instead of $£billions of financial paper losses, the losses will be in millions or even billions of lost human lives.

    The population bubble is still in a highly precarious position and is very close to a precipice and a major fall, solely due to continued world financial problems which are still reverberating around the world and which to my mind are seeking to locate an aftershock because man made interventions to the initial problem have only basically resulted in a tempory and highly unstable and unnatural set of conditions, which still seek natural justice and position.

    Another reality of sustainability is just so in the face of everyone, staring everyone blatantly and directly in the face, and is in fact a big wake up slap.

    The fact is, is that many businesses have not been able to sustain workers and many more in coming times also cannot sustain workers and at the same time states/societys cannot afford to sustain non workers either, due to debts.
    This in itself means (and proves my comments as above), that more people are going to have to accept less, including the haves peoples are going to have to accept less to enable sustaining those who have less or nothing.

    The more the haves people try to hold on to all they have, the tighter the bubble becomes and the thinner its substance and ability to withstand growing preasure of and from the have nots.

    It is the wests social security/social benefits that make up much of the bubbles protective structure, as social security and social benefits decline from economic and monetry preasure, so the bubble will weaken.

    For years now, social structures in the west have been put under growing preasure by providing more and more benefits to growing numbers of employed who do not earn enough to properly maintain their lives in accordance with our socially acceptable standards. Masses of low paid or tempory jobs. In Europe this is much more prelevent than in USA, but also in USA many more people are in employment earning lower wages who are also effectively subsidised by middle earners, while the top earners contribute far less a percentage of their income/wealth to maintaining social structure and cohesion, a growing problem of past 12 years in UK also.

    The reality all equates back to unsustainable population levels.

    The past decades have seen an over abundance of produce which has enabled continued population explosion/growth. Thats fine when yeilds are high, and only food production matters, but humans have added economics and financial gambling into the equation of population sustainability and a decline in yeilds, whether food, economic or financial all each play a significant part in sustainability.

    The reality is that its all very well regulting food supply, regulating economics, regulating emmissions, regulating financial gambling, but the MOST important part of the equation, population, is totally unregulated and also out of control as much as financial gambling has been.

    Until populations, especially those dominated by religions, come to terms with limits to growth and limits to sustainability, then whatever Obama or Europe or india/China/Brazil/Africa/Middle East, etc, etc attempts to do to reduce emissions is just a basic lie and deceit with which our species cons and decieves itself to enable continued behaviour as mentioned by the obnoxious world family above.




  • Comment number 34.

    Nothing, Nothing is what I want from this Socialist President of ours and I have already directed my Republican Senators to oppose this mindless legislation based on the lie of Man Made Global Warming.

  • Comment number 35.

    Obama should reassess the importance of the global warming trend. What matters is the weather you actually get not trends lines on a scientist’s graph.

    We are a few weeks from mid-summers day, and like every day this year, I have my central heating switched on. This cool summer follows a winter of record breaking snow falls and low temperatures . These unusually cold weather conditions have now prevailed for almost 3 years – an air conditioning unit I bought in 2007 has never been taken out of its box. And this isn’t just a peculiarity of my location ( SE England) much of the Northern hemisphere has had much colder weather than normal.

    Obviously local weather events are cancelling out the global warming trend. The fact that they do so continuously and so thoroughly, invites questions about the importance of the global temperature trend in determining the weather.

    I think we all need to calm down a bit about global warming and take a more sober look at how much it actually affects the weather. Yes we should look after the environment but I think all this end of the world is neigh stuff is a bit overdone. Let’s not let ourselves be panicked into a series of what could be hideously costly mistakes at a time when we can least afford them.

  • Comment number 36.

    28. At 1:24pm on 12 May 2010, And_here_we_go_again wrote:

    And soot is produced how? By incomplete combustion, complete combustion resulting in CO2 and H2O, incomplete resulting in soot. Therefore these are two intrinsically link contributors and any future technologies designed for reducing CO2 will be extension reduce soot emmissions.

    -------------------------------------

    Just being told by a SCIENTIST here-

    Complete combustion is the TOTAL conversion of coal/gas/etc to co2+h2o therefore incomplete combustion results in LESS co2 as not all of the carbon is oxidised.

    Apart from that FACT that the soot isnt being collected under these MMCC co2 theory laws. We are letting the soot which alone is blamed as equally as damaging go free when ti can be cheaply fixed unlike co2. Co2 relies on future technology. Soot can be solved now.

  • Comment number 37.

    21. At 12:55pm on 12 May 2010, edna teevee wrote:
    "We have just had one of the coldest winters in my 60 years, its the middle of May and I can see frost on the grass when I walk the dog each morning....I am not afraid, repeat, I AM NOT AFRAID."

    Which you're taking as proof against MMCC? So if there are a few days in the 90s this summer you'll no doubt take that as proof that MMCC is for real? Or will they just be "exceptional"? Either way your conclusions are laughably flawed and unscientific. MMCC is about global trends and averages over an extended period not the odd day in May in your back garden. The trend is clear and obvious to anyone who bothers to open their mind. You may not be afraid, but I am. Especially for my children. Imagine millions of displaced people looking for food and water, imagine global local conflict for resources. I'll look you up in 30 years and see how "afraid" you are then.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is the whole point of the MMCC movement. Frighten everyone with a doomesday scenario and then claim anyone who opposes it is being reckless.

    I have believed that MMCC was wrong from day one, why? I asked myself the question, when did it start? Suddenly, after 250 years of the industrial revolution we get MMCC. Who saw it coming? Not the 'scientists' of the IPCC (25% of the reports in their last report where non-scientific papers that had not been peer-reviewed).

    This whole movement is a result of 50 years of environmentalism. A movement of dreamers and fantasists, cherry-picking 'science' when it suited them (Oh my god! an area the size of Belgium is cleared from the Amazon rain forest every year! everyone panic! Its actually less than 1%. Polar bears are dying! I was born 60 years ago when the world had 5000 polar bears, we now have 25000, so much for an endangered spieces).

    Your basic creed is that man is bad, bad for the planet, bad for nature and bad for mankind.

    Just stop and think. Africa has no polution, no pesticides, no cars, no airplanes (compared to the 1st world). Their life expectancy is half ours. Their food production is half ours, their standard of living is half ours. Ask yourself if you believe in MMCC would you go and live in Africa? No? Hypocrite!

    The dream is over. Africa and the rest of the third world are ignoring our guilt trip fantasies. They are using DDT again (hoping to stop the 40K deaths a year from malaria). They are building power stations. roads for cars and the rest of the infrastructure the enviromentalists hate.

    You claim to be afraid. You are afraid because you want to be afraid. You want to parade your 'fear' to all so you can claim the moral high ground and proclaim you are better than others, better than me because you 'care'.

    Well I do not give you the moral high ground. I say you are irresponsible to put your beliefs before cold hard reason. Your cause is a false god, invented by man, because you cannot, or will not accept that all the technological benefits we have are so beneficial to everyone.

    Dream on. environmentalism is dying. Dying because you have cried wolf once too often. You now have to justify every scare story you make.

    This bill will not mean anything. If it is as strong as you think it should be it will stop the US economy, Barak Obama will not allow that to happen. If it's a weak as I believe it to be it will be ignored.

    Go find another lost cause to dream about.

  • Comment number 38.

    9. At 11:04am on 12 May 2010, A Williams wrote:

    "First thing they should do is resolve not to listen to the denialist conspiranoia."

    This comment sums up the whole AGW movement, no dissent permitted, no attempt to follow the scientific method by testing theories, just do as we tell you. If there was real confidence in AGW then skepticism would be welcomed and raw data shared.


    Sceptism is warmly welcomed and actively encouraged, religous fanatism on either side is not. The vast (& it really is vast) bulk of scientific peer reviewed research supports the view that the climate is warming significantly and that this modern phase of warming is largely caused by human activity. The amount of peer reviewed scientific research that points in a different direction is tiny. This is not an area where there can be a mathematical proof one way or the other, although there are number of relevant equations all of which are proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The basic case for man made global warming is built on the laws of physics, the basic case against, as made on numerous internet blogs and forums, is built on a Conspiracy theory and makes no real attempt to increase scientific knowledge.
    Good science allows for the possibility that it may be wrong and constantly tests for that possibility and looks for alternative interpretations, Climate change research is no exception. The possibility that someone could come up with a proof tomorrow, or the next day, that disproves the case for man made global warming is fully accepted in the scientific community, it is just considered by most scientists, given the weight of the evidence, extremely unlikely. New peer reviewed research by different scientists around the world, sometimes making new measurements, sometimes repeating or improving on earlier measurements is constantly published and the vast majority of it confirms the scientific consensus but you don't need to believe me, just read the reputable online scientific journals and decide for yourself.

  • Comment number 39.

    Forget Global Warming and Climate Change just for a second and ask yourself if you want to live in a polluted world or a cleaner one.

    If you like the idea of a clean one why shouldn't we be doing as much as we can about cutting pollution and going for "greener" options?

  • Comment number 40.

    Ah, another chance for the people who do understand the scientific papers to try until they're blue in the face to explain the facts to the plebs who can't grasp a scientific concept to save their lives and don't want to believe in anything that might mean that they have to change their lifestyle.

    Lets just not bother. Let the scientific community continue to do what they are already doing - research, advise and help to change the world one little bit at a time. Why are we even trying to explain things to the average man? Their opinions don’t matter a bit.

    The biggest threat to this planet is the human race, especially the selfish, ignorant majority who breed like rats, consume as much as they can get their sticky little hands on and wreak as much destruction on their environment as they can. Thank God that the people in charge are dismissing your irrelevant conspiracy theories before they can do any damage. Lets hope that this breed of idiots dies out along with the racists, homophobes, warmongers and all the other outdated oxygen thieves on this abused planet.

  • Comment number 41.

    39. At 1:50pm on 12 May 2010, Nakor wrote:
    Forget Global Warming and Climate Change just for a second and ask yourself if you want to live in a polluted world or a cleaner one.

    If you like the idea of a clean one why shouldn't we be doing as much as we can about cutting pollution and going for "greener" options?
    **********************************************************************

    Exactly. Why on earth would anyone NOT want to cut pollution and live in a less damaged world? Do the compulsive breeders just not care that there will be nothing left to pass on to their many, many children?

  • Comment number 42.

    'so they can happily continue their lifestyle'

    You mean like Al Gore.

  • Comment number 43.

    James T Kirk - let's suppose that the 30% rise in CO2 levels since 1750 is indeed the result of burning fossil fuels and changes in land use, and that man is indeed to blame for the rise in temperature. Can you explain then what caused rises in global temperatures in the past, for example in Roman times, when it was warm enough to grow grapes in Britain? There was insignificant burning of fossil fuels in those days, so what caused the change in climate? It's a valid question which I would like to hear your answer to.

  • Comment number 44.

    39. At 1:50pm on 12 May 2010, Nakor wrote:

    Forget Global Warming and Climate Change just for a second and ask yourself if you want to live in a polluted world or a cleaner one.

    If you like the idea of a clean one why shouldn't we be doing as much as we can about cutting pollution and going for "greener" options?

    ----------------------------------

    And this is the point of the skeptics. So far the MMCC co2 lobby are taking money to solve what can easily be a non-problem. A lie. This money could be put into changing the valves on those oil ships to reduce the chance of the BP oil spill. Or to send cleaner water into the sea from our industry.

    Instead we are being taxed and our money diverted to reducing what can so easily be a non-problem. Its a tax on breathing with NO solid evidence to back it up. There are plenty data models but even the best one is missing a lot of data and even this month one of their major contributers was proven to be much less than assumed.

    We could be cleaning the planet, instead we are chasing ghosts

  • Comment number 45.

    'At 10:14am on 12 May 2010, 23 years 10 months and counting wrote:
    First thing they should do is resolve not to listen to the denialist conspiranoia.'

    The first thing that a 'denialist' must do is to establish whether the science underpinning the predictions is correct. To do that, you make predictions based on the hypotheses and expect them to be true.

    The problem is, for the past decade i.e. 50% of the time since the Rio Earth Summit, the earth has been cooling, not warming. And measurements show that.

    It's not 'denialist' to make scientific measurements and design scientific experiments you know.

    It's a denial of science to say that you are right in the face of conflicting data.

    I'm assuming that you are about 24 years old.

    You may learn by the time that you are 48 that the world is more complex than you thought. Don't worry about that. You would be like Winston Churchill in that regard.......

  • Comment number 46.

    39. At 1:50pm on 12 May 2010, Nakor wrote: Forget Global Warming and Climate Change just for a second and ask yourself if you want to live in a polluted world or a cleaner one.
    Well just as soon as the Left concedes that Man Made Global Warming was all just a Leftist scheme to bankrupt capitalism, perhaps then we can have an honest dialog about oil, renewable energy, recycling, pollution, and the condition of the planet.
    Hey Nakor; Did you see Al Gore's new multi multi million dollar house right on the California coast? he does not seem too worried about climate change and rising sea levels does he?

  • Comment number 47.

    "13. At 12:03pm on 12 May 2010, Batcow wrote:

    The very first thing that George W. Bush did when he became president was to announce that he was abandoning America's Kyoto commitments. Obama must legislate in such a way that cannot easily be undone or brushe aside by the likes of Palin."

    Er...where does one start with such plain silliness?

    Firstly, the US President has absolutely no power whatsoever to sign an international treaty without Congressional ratification. Kyoto was beaten in the Senate 99-0 (with one abstention).

    Your second comment just reveals how much you respect the democratic processes and the will of the American electorate. Would you prefer a dictatorship?

  • Comment number 48.

    It should include a disclaimer that the people responsible for this plan lack any intelligence and are only interested in power grabbing by telling people this is necessary to help the planet, when it actually only helps greedy politicians.

  • Comment number 49.

    43. At 2:01pm on 12 May 2010, tim4172 wrote:

    James T Kirk - let's suppose that the 30% rise in CO2 levels since 1750 is indeed the result of burning fossil fuels and changes in land use, and that man is indeed to blame for the rise in temperature. Can you explain then what caused rises in global temperatures in the past, for example in Roman times, when it was warm enough to grow grapes in Britain? There was insignificant burning of fossil fuels in those days, so what caused the change in climate? It's a valid question which I would like to hear your answer to.

    -----------------------------

    I will add tim that the data models had to work of modern recent data to build their models. They only go as far back as proves their case. The older warming cycles are fact (solid factual evidence) which I keep looking for to support MMCC. Unfortunately the MMCC co2 lobby must neglect this solid factual evidence to make their claims. This is not propaganda, it is fact.

  • Comment number 50.

    39. Nakor wrote:
    Forget Global Warming and Climate Change just for a second and ask yourself if you want to live in a polluted world or a cleaner one.

    If you like the idea of a clean one why shouldn't we be doing as much as we can about cutting pollution and going for "greener" options?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ask most people what they consider pollution and they will tell you pesticides.

    This is rubbish, read the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn lomburg.

    His facts, produced by UN scientists, show that if you drink water contaminated with pesticides to the maximum level permitted by the EC would give you less chance of developing cancer than smoking just 2 cigerettes, or drinking just one glass of red wine - in your entire life!

    We have the cleanest air in London since 1550, yet we are told that we are reducing our life expectancy due to vehicle exhausts. Actually our average lifespan is still rising.

    As I said earlier, if you want it green, go live in Africa. No pesticides, no vehicles, organic food. Yes life expectancy is half ours, food is rubbish compared to ours because it is labour intensive, dependant on rainfall and not protected from the ravages of nature, but hey it's organic!

    Dream on.

  • Comment number 51.

    43. At 2:01pm on 12 May 2010, tim4172 wrote:

    Can you explain then what caused rises in global temperatures in the past, for example in Roman times, when it was warm enough to grow grapes in Britain? There was insignificant burning of fossil fuels in those days, so what caused the change in climate?

    -----

    I'll take this one, the ancient world is my area of expertise.

    Firstly, i don't know where you get the idea that fossil fuel use was insignificant - the Roman Emmpire was massively industrialised and many of those industrial processes, from smelting metals to firing pottery to making dyes involved burning coal, wood & charcoal on a huge scale, to the point that there is a level of industrial pollution recorded in the icecaps at the poles that the world did not see again until the 19th century.

    Whether that contributed to a warmer temperature at that point i have no idea, although there is eveidence that global temperatures dipped slightly immediately after the Roman period.

  • Comment number 52.

    43. At 2:01pm on 12 May 2010, tim4172 wrote:
    James T Kirk - let's suppose that the 30% rise in CO2 levels since 1750 is indeed the result of burning fossil fuels and changes in land use, and that man is indeed to blame for the rise in temperature. Can you explain then what caused rises in global temperatures in the past, for example in Roman times, when it was warm enough to grow grapes in Britain? There was insignificant burning of fossil fuels in those days, so what caused the change in climate? It's a valid question which I would like to hear your answer to.
    ---------------------------------

    Nobody denies that the Earth's climate doesn't fluctuate from time to time due to natural phenomena, but the simple fact is that by disgorging vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, these fluctuations are migrating towards a higher temperature average. That's simple grade school physics.

  • Comment number 53.

    Any legislation dealing with a farce and a sham like "climate change" is akin to banning exploration of the oceans in the 15th century because everyone "knew" the earth was flat. Climate change or "global warming" has zero to do with science and the environment and everything to do with global income redistribution, fear, loathing and envy of the west and statist power grabbing. It is the greatest hoax of the age and the BBC is its greatest enabler.

  • Comment number 54.

    43. At 2:01pm on 12 May 2010, tim4172 wrote:

    "Can you explain then what caused rises in global temperatures in the past, for example in Roman times, when it was warm enough to grow grapes in Britain?"

    It still is warm enough to grow grapes in Britian. Any good garden centre will sell you cuttings to plant on a sunny wall or trellis.

  • Comment number 55.

    44. At 2:06pm on 12 May 2010, in_the_uk wrote:

    "And this is the point of the skeptics. So far the MMCC co2 lobby are taking money to solve what can easily be a non-problem. A lie."

    I'm not trying to disagree with you but what is the lie? That air polution doesn't exsist?

    Quite obviously there is air polution which we can try and cut for the sake of a cleaner world.

    How? Now that's a whole diferent kettle of fish!

  • Comment number 56.

    1) Global Warming has become a cheap-shot Political Tool used to villify ones opponent. Liberals have mastered this technique.

    2) Global Warming has become a Marketing Tool to peddle crappy products with the word "Green" printed on the label.


    Now, I'm not saying GW doesn't exist. Rather, it has become a tool of exploitation, that's all.





  • Comment number 57.

    We know who all the perps are regarding pollution. China, India, Russia. Those are the big players and the least likely to actually do anything. What about the removal of the worlds huge rain forests? That alone, with the absence of CO2 sucking and O giving trees and vegetation is a climate changer on it's own. How come no one ever brings up the South American and SE Asian criminals for that one? Too easy to tax the fools on "emissions". Easier to grasp the idea. Not too many studied biology and how their mother Earth actually functions. Start there and work back. Hot air causing problems? Thats easy. Shut down the senate and congress for a year. See what happens then when people who actually LIVE in the real world are allowed to manage their OWN future without the blow hards.

  • Comment number 58.

    52. At 2:29pm on 12 May 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:

    Nobody denies that the Earth's climate doesn't fluctuate from time to time due to natural phenomena, but the simple fact is that by disgorging vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, these fluctuations are migrating towards a higher temperature average. That's simple grade school physics.

    ---------------------------------

    You made the 'simple grade school physics' bit of your statement by assuming there is a link between our co2 output and rising temperature. This is contested on 2 fronts-

    More co2 is more food for plantlife/algie. This is on the rise as proven around the world. An increase in this life reduces the amount of co2 in the air and using your simple assumption: more plantlife must balance our output. It is more complicated than that but your argument was defeated by a similar argument.

    The normal fluctuations predict exactly what we have. It would be vastly harder to prove this is different because the actual, factual evidence in history shows higher co2 before we had industry. Normal fluctuations account for much more co2 than we have now, yet humans lived. The assumption we are not on a natural path has yet to be proven and wont be easy to prove.

    This is not to insult you but it is to inform. MMCC co2 theory may be right, may be wrong. MMCC may also be wrong and that issue is not over as proven this year in march. The problem we have is any real evidence of any theory is trapped behind the pro lobby who are lying consistently and blocking real evidence.

  • Comment number 59.

    No imports from undemoctratic/pollutant countries like china.

  • Comment number 60.

    The entire "Going Green" thing has been hijacked by those that use the colour as an excuse to tax us more and more, while sending us all on some type of guilt trip. Talk about manipulating the masses. Sure we need to conserve and recycle wherever practical, but at what cost? If it costs more and uses more and more energy (alleged polluter), then we are destroying the object of the exercise. Liberals and super socialists are great at spending money that is not theirs or money they never came close to actually earning. Just come up with another whacky idea that sounds great. Well, if you live in the country of Fantasia, just south of Fantasy Island.

  • Comment number 61.

    55. At 2:38pm on 12 May 2010, Nakor wrote:

    I'm not trying to disagree with you but what is the lie? That air polution doesn't exsist?

    Quite obviously there is air polution which we can try and cut for the sake of a cleaner world.

    How? Now that's a whole diferent kettle of fish!

    -------------------------------

    There is air pollution and we all know about it. Industrial soot is claimed to be as bad as co2 for causing global warming. Yet it is left unchecked. It does cause melting and is proven to be a problem. Yet the pro lobby dont want you to look into this although NASA has made statements in the past hinting at this problem.

    We do need to cut air pollution. But if someone suddenly says cut down oxygen, will you just accept it? Picking on any gas without proving its a problem is irrisponsible and takes resources which could be dealing with real pollution.

    Let me change the question to- Should we clean the production of a harmless gas at the expense of dangerous ones?

    If you say no to that question you say no to the MMCC co2 theory until they actually prove something. Data models prove nothing and factual evidence has shown we are nowhere near historical levels of co2 (times when humans were around).

  • Comment number 62.

    China presents the most serious threat to the world with dangerous emissions from industry. Congress should authorize the sale of technology to China for improved process of materials. The Chinese could mostly eliminate pollution and make better products for the asian business sector.

  • Comment number 63.

    Its going to be tough passing meaningful legislation given the state of the economy, growing skepticism on global warming, and lack of faith in our politicians.

    I would like to watch a debate on this subject - but none of my local college campuses have sponsored one - and I have yet to see anything on television. Whats up with that?

    One would think that an issue which is suppose to have profound consequences would warrant face to face debates and not just "gotchas" on internet forums.

  • Comment number 64.

    Make it a legal requirement that all new cars sold in the US are capable of a minimum 35 mpg. Bypass the lawyers by providing an opt out , an annual levy of $1000 for every mile less that 35mpg to the owner of the gas-guzzler.
    It would not only help with CO emissions it would reduce the US's reliance on foreign oil.

  • Comment number 65.

    What should the US climate change bill include?

    Human behaviour, as well as sustainable populations.

    In recent years every UK taxpayer has literally contributed to paying fines for the privilege of breathing in terrible and damaging polluted air which is also responsible for poisioning millions of children and adults resulting in massive growth of respiratory illnesses and health dis-orders which also add massive health costs to taxpayers.

    Its NOT just about climate change.

    When I was at college in mid 1990s, smoking bans were just being introduced in colleges. It seems crazy now that years ago anyone could smoke in college buildings or even wondering around Woolworths or Littlewoods.

    The smoking bans were introduced because of relation to cancers and ill health.

    On the same day as the ban was introduced at my college the USA chief medical officer or whatever, I forget now, it was long ago, had published many years of scientific investigation into cancers, involving hundreds of thousands of people.
    The findings were that MOST cancers were actually attributable to pollution from vehicles, mainly by diesel vehicles and mainly in citys and large urban areas, although other emissions pollution also had significant blame.

    Hence, as above - ITS NOT JUST ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Thing was, that UK BMA (British Medical Association) in conspiracy with UK government, refused to accept the findings because they personally did not carry out the research and it was also much easier to blame smokers for all and sundry.

    Key Facts of cancer in UK:

    Overall cancer incidence rates have increased by one quarter since 1975 but have remained fairly stable over the past decade.

    There are more than 293,000 new cases of cancer diagnosed each year in the UK.

    In 2008, there were more than 156,000 cancer deaths in the UK.

    Every four minutes another person dies of cancer in the UK.

    Now there are many reasons for cancer, smoking being one, and the sun and obesity being direct causes of new huge growth areas, but the reality is the massive growing number attributal to emissions/pollution.

    In developing countrys alone, the growth in cancers is like an explosion, and its all mainly as a result of massive massive growth of emissions pollution, especially vehicles.

    Now the Germans were called genocidal maniacs because they caused the horrendous and attrocious deaths of so many. So what does that make each and every one of us who contribute to emissions resulting in millions of deaths and attrocious illnesses each year. Does that make us any better because we are not directly inflicting this horror personally person to person.

    Whether you cause someones death or cause attrocious human suffering directly or by distance and indirectly does that make one killer better than the other.

    We/most, growing numbers, are all part of this complicated carnage which we all play a part in, hence WHO needs climate change as an excuse to act in the face of REAL evidence as to what we are directly or indirectly doing to one another and others.

    When you see a young child gasping for air and using an inhaler, you personally have most probably contributed to his health problem because you and everything you purchase has direct or indirect consequence and contributory factors relating to it.

    Smoking has been banned in many places throughout the world, especially in buildings and areas that are shared with others.

    In reality, the world is our shared room, and what one does in it effects others.

    Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and so in effect is human behaviour because we just do what is ultimately natural to us, including behaving negligently and attrociously being bad. Refusing to accept anything which may result in a decline of our materialistic world is just also a natural human trait, but it is one traight that we actually have individual choice and power over.

    We might not be able to make great effect on the worlds nature improving, but we can make great effect on improving our own behaviour which adds to or reduces the impact of our planets raw nature.

    Hence regardless of climate change argument, there is more than enough evidence which in the UK alone is represented by 156,000 cancer death coffins each year, to make the argument for reduction in emissions.

    As it stands, cancer and other illness death numbers basically represents acceptance of direct/indirect mass genocide sanctioned by state and public via the action we take and the lives we lead.

    The climate change talk and lobbyists, talk of future problems and deaths etc, hence, I personally think all this climate talk etc is a huge distraction as to the actual reality of what is happening here and now in the present of which there can be no greater evidence than already factual and actual facts and figures relating to death attributal to emissions in their various forms over the past 50 years.

  • Comment number 66.

    It's funny:
    -----------

    Most of the people who whole heartily embrace 'Global Warming' do not believe in God. They mock anyone who has religious faith.

    And yet, Global Warmers have un-dying faith in 'anything' a scientist has to say. It doesn't matter to them if the studies are flawed. Global Warmers refuse to question the almighty 'Scientific Data'. Blind faith is good enough for them.

    Global Warmers have adopted Global Warming as their religion. These people practically worship the planet.

    It seems that Mother Earth is their God, and the so-called Scientists are their Prophets.

    And naturally, paying a 'Carbon Tax' is the equivalent of tithing.

    YEP - It's a religion alright.
    And like any true Zealot - they'll condemn anyone who doesn't pray they way they do.

    Instead of bowing to Mecca - they bow to 'Data', be it ever so flawed.


    Now, like it or not - get ready to pay your tithing ....

  • Comment number 67.

    36. At 1:47pm on 12 May 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
    28. At 1:24pm on 12 May 2010, And_here_we_go_again wrote:

    And soot is produced how? By incomplete combustion, complete combustion resulting in CO2 and H2O, incomplete resulting in soot. Therefore these are two intrinsically link contributors and any future technologies designed for reducing CO2 will be extension reduce soot emmissions.

    -------------------------------------

    Just being told by a SCIENTIST here-

    Complete combustion is the TOTAL conversion of coal/gas/etc to co2+h2o therefore incomplete combustion results in LESS co2 as not all of the carbon is oxidised.

    Apart from that FACT that the soot isnt being collected under these MMCC co2 theory laws. We are letting the soot which alone is blamed as equally as damaging go free when ti can be cheaply fixed unlike co2. Co2 relies on future technology. Soot can be solved now.

    ..................

    Firstly, thank-you so much for the patronising science lesson, however as a scientific engineer I was already aware of the meaning of what I had written. When I said that by reducing CO2 emmissions, we would reduce soot emmissions as well I was thinking about more efficient energy conversion methods resulting in less fuel needing to be burnt for the same energy output, thus reducing both CO2 and soot. Now I am not an expert in the area of producing clean emmissions, I can imagine that it is possible to collect the majority of soot by means of filters and gauzes but I also susspect it is very hard to collect all of it especially away from power stations in vehicle exhausts and so forth so still hold to the fact that more efficient technologies are the long term solution to the problem.

    On another point, I don't believe any scientist have stated that CO2 is the only pollutant and it is primarily the sceptics that bulldoze this argument, by claiming that any comment on other pollutants means that the CO2 argument is false. This is not the case, just because something else (in your example soot, alternatively methane, water vapour or over population) also effects the pollution of this planet does not invalidate the CO2 hypothesis.

  • Comment number 68.

    53. At 2:34pm on 12 May 2010, Rather_Be_Cycling
    Well said.

    This is a farce. Nothing more than wealth redistribution and economic control. I would also add that I find it coincidental that as Europe and particularly the UK has run out of coal and oil they are in the forefront of propagating the farce that man made production of CO2 is causing climate change. So I would add to the reasons that Europe is so keen on promoting this load of manure is that it will help to level the economic playing field. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. There is enough of the stuff to provide America with all of it's energy needs for 100s of years and still continue to export it to other countries. If all offshore fields where open to drilling the US petroleum reserves would be greater than Venezuala.

    Solar, wind, anyone with an ounce of common sense will tell you that they just don't scale economically and all the government subsidies will not change that fact.

    Rather than a climate change bill the Senate should be working on an energy independence and economic revitalization bill. Highlights would include:

    Open all areas to offshore drilling
    Increase coal production
    Increase natural gas production
    Foster greater use of coal to liquid and gas to liquid technology
    Roll out the next generation of small scale nuclear generators

    We all want clean air and water. We all want prosperity. We can have both. The air and water in this country is the cleanest it's been in 100 years. Global warming was made up to get around that inconvenient truth.

  • Comment number 69.

    We cannot change or alter climate through our actions, we are but mere pawns in the cosmic equation.

  • Comment number 70.

    Both promulgations of ‘Health Care’ as well as determination of ‘Reduction in emission level of Carbon dioxide’ are actions not exactly connected to the cause to see ourselves the present environmental disturbances directly but it definitely mean a lot more, through our expressing of Love towards each other to make the environment calm out of the result we expect to obtain from it. Being an Industrialized Nation, an abrupt cutting down of emission level may not be that much feasible from the Industries as a whole which are purely based on tar or coal Supply unless we make available other inexpensive supply of fuel. The mass production of Nuclear Energy might offer an alternative but the modification of equipment might require more time. The other sources of clean Power such as solar and wind energy cannot fill-up the large gap. However, in order to compensate it, some reduction of running of vehicles entire based on petrol & Diesel together with compulsory shutting down of Engines near various Traffic junctions during waiting period might contribute a lot towards seeing of this reduction. Again in order to happen so voluntarily, we must offer heavy incentive to procure Tiptop Batteries by all users much cheaper than what it is costing in the Market now. This shall not only allow a demand to come-in or happen for a particular Product in the Market as well as considerable saving of fuel, we shall also see straight cutting down in emission level.

    But the actual cause of happening of current sudden unpredictable weather condition or pattern is not due to the overnight accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When Lord Christ was crucified reasonless, why the entire of us ran ourselves higgledy-piggledy for shelter to save ourselves from an eminent catastrophe everywhere? As and when we lose our value due to absence of love within us towards each other, the weather too also stop following of a set order but all actions of all objects connected with well being of the world shall also get loose to spare none due to our embracing such actions masses everywhere with a high degree of proud of doing so to establish one’s ownership of anything and everything over the other which is built firmly in our hearts. We possibly found His dead body; dugout from the debris being He available everywhere to inflict much heavier and graver pain onto the entire Universe to invite such happenings to become an order of the day.

    As far as Drilling in the Offshore Region is concern, the present Blowout at the Gulf of Mexico is an isolated as well as an unfortunate happening and hence it cannot happen so, all the time to abandon the idea of Drilling in the area. Since it is a sensitive most area, full of Natural habitants; we cannot afford to hurt them through our most thought out action without strict of the strictest precautions either absent or not properly enforced.

    (Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA PhD)

  • Comment number 71.

    There is quite convincing evidence that the climate is changing (and yes, this can mean temperatures going down as well as up). HOWEVER, the exact level of contribution mankind is making to this change is still very unclear, no matter what the IPCC will tell you, and until they get their researchers scientific method validated they have little of value to say on the matter.

    The key question is this: how much of our economy and quality of life are we willing to sacrifice to try and prevent something that may be out of our hands? The environmental lobby would have the economy over a barrel for this aim and that is not sensible. Green issues, like renewable energy sources and reduction in fossil fuel use, are good things and worth working towards, but not at the expense of the wider economy.

  • Comment number 72.

    61. At 3:00pm on 12 May 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
    "If you say no to that question you say no to the MMCC co2 theory until they actually prove something."

    Of course! I never said I believed in the MMCC CO2 theory :)

    Air polution (note that I didn't say CO2) is just 1 side of the multifaceted problem of keeping the environment clean.

    But yet you use a rather big caveat in your closing statement "until they actually prove something".

    I have to say there's a little hint of "Let's not bother until we have to" in there. Do we dare wait until it's too late.... IF it becomes to late or do we try to makes changes now if for nothing else than tidying up of ourselves?


  • Comment number 73.

    Unfortunately any action Obama takes will be less about actually doing something to stop the effects of climate change and more about securing a massive new source of revenue for the government so it can be doled out as political patronage to his party's constituents.

  • Comment number 74.

    72. At 4:01pm on 12 May 2010, Nakor wrote:

    Of course! I never said I believed in the MMCC CO2 theory :)

    Air polution (note that I didn't say CO2) is just 1 side of the multifaceted problem of keeping the environment clean.

    But yet you use a rather big caveat in your closing statement "until they actually prove something".

    I have to say there's a little hint of "Let's not bother until we have to" in there. Do we dare wait until it's too late.... IF it becomes to late or do we try to makes changes now if for nothing else than tidying up of ourselves?

    ------------------------------------

    Air pollution should be cleaned up but the climate change assumption is for cleaning co2 specifically as it is the politically best theory (if not necessarily reality).

    My statement isnt so much "Let's not bother until we have to", more "dont waste my money cleaning what is already clean". I would prefer my contribution to go towards cleaning real polution which affects the planet.

    While the co2 theorists have shouted their 'certainty' for a long time, I have provided full facts (not just the pro lobby bits). As a result I have pointed out industrial soot which is apparently equal in the damage caused by co2 (if the theory is correct) but can easily be cleaned with todays technology and is actual pollution. By distracting us with co2 they cound be leaving this too late while this is a proven pollution (co2 is not).

  • Comment number 75.

    58. At 2:53pm on 12 May 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
    You made the 'simple grade school physics' bit of your statement by assuming there is a link between our co2 output and rising temperature. This is contested on 2 fronts-

    More co2 is more food for plantlife/algie. This is on the rise as proven around the world. An increase in this life reduces the amount of co2 in the air and using your simple assumption: more plantlife must balance our output. It is more complicated than that but your argument was defeated by a similar argument.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it has been found that increased levels of CO2 does cause an initial elevation in plant growth, it tends to level off after a few years, generally attributed to the limited availability of other factors like water or nitrogen or an increase in temperature outside the plant's comfort zone (thanks to an increases in atmospheric CO2). The effect of climate change on the plant's environment will likely have a larger impact on it than an increased supply of CO2. Also, higher plant growth can only lock away a certain amount of CO2, while the rest is lost during resperation and decomposition when the plant dies. Eventually as the amount of CO2 released increases and the temperature rises, the environment will released more than what is absorbed. The latest IPCC report concludes that the terrestrial biosphere will become a source rather than a sink of carbon before the end of the century. Increased CO2 also acidifies the oceans, resulting in significant loss of biodiversity.

  • Comment number 76.

    The best thing George Bush ever did for my country and for mankind was to keep us out of this MMGW... NONSENSE.
    If Bush had gone along with Kyoto and gotten our congress to pass it, Trillions would have already been wasted on this lie, our economies would be in real shambles, and the Leftist liars behind this scheme would be claiming the recent cooling as proof of thier success.
    Thank God Bush had the brains and insight to resist this nonsense and the associated propaganda and to not be dragged along with the political sheep of this world.

  • Comment number 77.

    The climate change issue has no Global approval because of varied interest of Industerial Nations in particular and Developing Nations in general. In addition the issue has no consensus from leading Scientists who deal with CO2's Emission effect on the Weather. Because of the above pending issues the proposal by the Democratic dominated Congress is only Political and not addressing the real issue. Proposing a bill on the ground of Majority in Congress does not serve the interest of the American people but only a reflection of one party rule.

  • Comment number 78.

    70% tax on fuel let's see how they like paying tax on fuel like we do in the UK

  • Comment number 79.

    75. At 4:34pm on 12 May 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:

    While it has been found that increased levels of CO2 does cause an initial elevation in plant growth, it tends to level off after a few years, generally attributed to the limited availability of other factors like water or nitrogen or an increase in temperature outside the plant's comfort zone (thanks to an increases in atmospheric CO2). The effect of climate change on the plant's environment will likely have a larger impact on it than an increased supply of CO2. Also, higher plant growth can only lock away a certain amount of CO2, while the rest is lost during resperation and decomposition when the plant dies. Eventually as the amount of CO2 released increases and the temperature rises, the environment will released more than what is absorbed. The latest IPCC report concludes that the terrestrial biosphere will become a source rather than a sink of carbon before the end of the century. Increased CO2 also acidifies the oceans, resulting in significant loss of biodiversity.

    -------------------------------------------

    If the IPCC is your source I would bin it quickly. The IPCC are not a valid source for information as it has been proven over and over. Fungus has been proven to release co2 and it is used as a major contributor for the data models. But they are wrong. Proven this year in california, the fungus levels out the output at a certain temperature. Therefore removing a large amount of co2 from the data model. Doubt they have updated it yet though.

    The fact which always shames the data models is that co2 has been far higher in the past and humans lived. The temperature was also higher. But the IPCC dont let fact get in the way. So far they have offered many half facts but miss out the important bits which counters their argument

  • Comment number 80.

    The oil companies have the blueprints for durable electric cars shelved because while there is still billions of barrels of oil in the earth, there is trillions of dollars to be made. Its all profits. Perhaps compelling these companies to surrender these blueprints for the good of mankind will be a positive note. We can live in clean air, curtail climate change and let the dictatorships of OPEC revert quietly back into the dark ages where they belong.

  • Comment number 81.

    78. At 4:39pm on 12 May 2010, wildthing666 wrote:

    70% tax on fuel let's see how they like paying tax on fuel like we do in the UK

    ----------------------------------

    Unfortunately it is here in the UK where hippies and fools tax so high for fuel. If this tax was lower there would be a stronger economy and we could compete on the world markets better. This would result in more tax for the gov by making a working economy.

    They aint too bright though

  • Comment number 82.

    65. MrWonderfulReality wrote:

    Key Facts of cancer in UK:

    Overall cancer incidence rates have increased by one quarter since 1975 but have remained fairly stable over the past decade.

    There are more than 293,000 new cases of cancer diagnosed each year in the UK.

    In 2008, there were more than 156,000 cancer deaths in the UK.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can we nail this cancer myth.

    If you live long enough two things will happen, either you will get cancer or your heart will fail.

    The incidence of cancer in people aged 0 - 25 years is minimal. In people aged 65+ it is 400 times more likely.

    As our population gross older on average we should expect the actual number of cancers to rise. But take these numbers into account, the so called age-adjusted cancers, and the number of cancers is falling.

    It has been falling for years. Now most cancers are treatable and curable. Survival rates have never been higher.

    So much for blaming pesticides and polution.

    Bjorn Lomberg quoted a UN statistic as follows:

    Out of 1000 cancer deaths.

    350 deaths due to bad diet.

    300 deaths due to smoking.

    100 deaths due to medicine.

    7 deaths due to pollution.

    We are winning the war on cancer.

    Using science and technology.

    Something the anti-science pro-MMCC lobby find hard to accept.



    Every four minutes another person dies of cancer in the UK.

  • Comment number 83.

    " 78. At 4:39pm on 12 May 2010, wildthing666 wrote:
    70% tax on fuel let's see how they like paying tax on fuel like we do in the UK"

    This is the utter folly of this whole thing: the "solution" to the "problem" is what? Conservation? No. It's taxation. It's the Left Wing/Euro solution to everything: take someone else's hard earned money under any pretext. And if high petrol taxes discourage consumption why is that, per capita, the UK has one of the highest motorcar usage rates of any country on the planet? All that money just goes down the socialist welfare state pan anyway.

    I don't drive, never have. Live in a big city. Walk to work. Take transit. I am as "green" as anyone. But I detest the sham of Global Warming/Green this and that. What's worse than pollution and trashing the planet? The nauseating, leftwing "progressive" hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing. Just say you want more of our money in pocket and stop the farce about saving the planet.

  • Comment number 84.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 85.

    63. At 3:07pm on 12 May 2010, cynic555 wrote:
    Its going to be tough passing meaningful legislation given the state of the economy, growing skepticism on global warming, and lack of faith in our politicians.
    I would like to watch a debate on this subject - but none of my local college campuses have sponsored one - and I have yet to see anything on television. Whats up with that?
    One would think that an issue which is suppose to have profound consequences would warrant face to face debates and not just "gotchas" on internet forums.


    The people who really understand the issue, the scientists doing the research are generally willing to debate with any scientist who can provide peer reviewed scientific claims to back a counter argument, however the deniers are largely religious zealots, who have no peer reviewed science to back their arguments and rely on conspiracy theories and pseudo science, (some of which you can see in posts above), there is no point debating with such people since their beliefs are religious in nature they will never accept the scientific evidence. There are some scientists who are sceptical about the extent of the threat that man made global warming represents however they generally do not wish to be associated with the religious zealot deniers which would inevitably result from them being involved in public debates. There are also some on the pro side of the argument who have developed a religious belief in Global warming, look about the internet and you’ll see them, scientists in the field do not wish to be associated with them either which can also result in a reluctance to discuss the issue in public.


    I saw a post recently that suggested the issue should be resolved by a debate between Al Gore & Lord Lawson, two individuals who are both largely scientifically illiterate. That really sums up why the people who really know what they’re talking about tend to keep out of it, it is also a sad indictment of the scientific literacy of the general public when they believe a scientific issue can be resolved by debate between two politicians.

  • Comment number 86.

    Is this really a new era in politics,or the actions of two leaders,so desperate to gain power they are prepared to ditch principles that have been long-held, by them and their loyal supporters?

  • Comment number 87.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 88.

    Hopefully He'll see it for what it really is......A Scam!

  • Comment number 89.

    I find it hilarious that most of those denying manmade climate change quote evidence such as "we've had the coldest winter on record".

    'Global warming' does not mean your back garden will get warmer. If only weather systems were that simple...

  • Comment number 90.

    83. At 5:15pm on 12 May 2010, Rather_Be_Cycling wrote:
    But I detest the sham of Global Warming/Green this and that. What's worse than pollution and trashing the planet? The nauseating, leftwing "progressive" hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing. Just say you want more of our money in pocket and stop the farce about saving the planet.

    --------------------------------

    No, what's worse is the anti-science troglodyte right wing zealots who use paranoid daydreams of evil communist "wealth redistribution" plots and jerry-rigged pseudo science as an excuse to avoid any environmental responsibility and continue their greedy short-sighted self destructive lifestyles.

    I'm much more inclined to listen to the smart folks at NASA, NOAA, IPCC, The Royal Meteorological Society, Academies of Science, Institutes of Physics, the UN, and the rest of the global scientific community than a bunch of self-appointed armchair climate experts on the internet.

  • Comment number 91.

    I'd like to see President Obama succeed - 17% reduction by 2020 is better than 0% - He is good man

  • Comment number 92.

    For the most part, all those who are contributing to this discussion seem to have a very good grasp of the situation at hand.from several points of view, which is good, and also constructive. More so than the politicians, who are using it for their own personal gain. If we could remove these blights on our society as easily as having we, the people, clean up the mess we make, and stop wiping out rain forests, then the planet would recover. While these terrible people we elect (not all obviously) act in their cavalier way (A Gore $$$$$ Just paid 8 mill for a home on the beach he said will be gone soon) then we are lost. First we need to change our leadership. We need leaders who actually KNOW and actually CARE and can actually DO SOMETHING RIGHT. Until the hunt for votes is cast aside, my friends out there in cyberworld, we have a very steep uphill struggle. We need to send our thoughts en masse to the leadership, and inform them that WE ARE informed, we are NOT stupid, and we need to act responsibly. That is EVERY COUNTRY with zero exceptions.

  • Comment number 93.

    #85

    "The people who really understand the issue, the scientists doing the research are generally willing to debate with any scientist who can provide peer reviewed scientific claims to back a counter argument, however the deniers are largely religious zealots, who have no peer reviewed science to back their arguments and rely on conspiracy theories and pseudo science, (some of which you can see in posts above), there is no point debating with such people since their beliefs are religious in nature they will never accept the scientific evidence"

    Are you seriously stating that there are no scientist on the opposing side worthy of participating in a debate? If so - that's nonsense.

    I continue to be disappointed that neither the colleges nor media have promoted a face to face debate on this serious issue. Makes one wonder why not.

  • Comment number 94.

    The abolition of ALL carbon fuelled cars.Also,an enforcement of electrically/battery powered cars with immediate effect

  • Comment number 95.

    "5. At 10:54am on 12 May 2010, James T Kirk wrote:

    To pre-empt the usual suspects who claim MMCC is a myth and a scam...."


    Brilliant as always, Mister Kirk. I won't bother reading the reams of replies which will, as always, be heavy on unsubstantiated claims and utterly lacking in even the most basic of facts.

  • Comment number 96.

    MMGW is a lie.

  • Comment number 97.

    90. At 6:36pm on 12 May 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:

    No, what's worse is the anti-science troglodyte right wing zealots who use paranoid daydreams of evil communist "wealth redistribution" plots and jerry-rigged pseudo science as an excuse to avoid any environmental responsibility and continue their greedy short-sighted self destructive lifestyles.

    I'm much more inclined to listen to the smart folks at NASA, NOAA, IPCC, The Royal Meteorological Society, Academies of Science, Institutes of Physics, the UN, and the rest of the global scientific community than a bunch of self-appointed armchair climate experts on the internet.

    -------------------------------

    I am a bit offended at being labeled an "anti-science troglodyte" when so far I have provided links to data from NASA and IPCC showing them to be wrong or only telling half truths. From their own admission too!

    I am no climate expert but I can read. If you look at the data you will find no evidence for MMCC co2 theory unless you look at data models which are still accepted as wrong or incomplete. This year evidence (real evidence with no data model assumption. Solid factual and testable) from german and russian scientists suggests this is not even man made!

    With SCIENTIFIC discoveries like this I am glad the real scientists aint settled yet. The only people who are certain are people listening to propaganda of drowning dog adverts and blatent lies.

  • Comment number 98.

    90. At 6:36pm on 12 May 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:
    "I'm much more inclined to listen to the smart folks at NASA, NOAA, IPCC, The Royal Meteorological Society, Academies of Science, Institutes of Physics, the UN, and the rest of the global scientific community than a bunch of self-appointed armchair climate experts on the internet."

    Why of course you are. Like you probably listened in awe to the "smart folks" who promised us a New Ice Age in the mid 1970s. Throughout history, politicians have had plenty of "smart folks" to give bogus credence to their daft ideas. I believe the earliest supporters of the National Socialists in Germany were doctors and Darwinists. In fact I know this was the case. "and the rest of the global scientific community" suggests, in itself, both a bogus notion of agreement on the issue by scientists general as well as a frightening Fascist orthodoxy of "science" and "truth", the same nonsense that promulgated the idea that the earth was flat.


  • Comment number 99.

    #85

    "The people who really understand the issue, the scientists doing the research are generally willing to debate with any scientist who can provide peer reviewed scientific claims to back a counter argument, however the deniers are largely religious zealots, who have no peer reviewed science to back their arguments and rely on conspiracy theories and pseudo science, (some of which you can see in posts above), there is no point debating with such people since their beliefs are religious in nature they will never accept the scientific evidence"

    The statement "pseudo science" makes me laugh. Since the pro lobby are based entirely on data models they themselves must accept are incomplete or outright wrong, I dont see how the skeptic is wrong.

    The IPCC has been proven liers and non-scientists (or just incompetent) and NASA was caught fudging the figures so badly that it didnt resemble the temperature data EVERYONE else had. Plus the problems with their satalites providing wrong data too makes their research questionable. They also blame soot as much as co2 but they didnt push it because they wernt allowed for lobby reasons.

    So far there is more reason to doubt the MMCC co2 theorists than believe them

  • Comment number 100.

    82. At 5:13pm on 12 May 2010, JohnH wrote:
    65. MrWonderfulReality wrote:

    Key Facts of cancer in UK:

    Overall cancer incidence rates have increased by one quarter since 1975 but have remained fairly stable over the past decade.

    There are more than 293,000 new cases of cancer diagnosed each year in the UK.

    In 2008, there were more than 156,000 cancer deaths in the UK.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can we nail this cancer myth.

    If you live long enough two things will happen, either you will get cancer or your heart will fail.

    The incidence of cancer in people aged 0 - 25 years is minimal. In people aged 65+ it is 400 times more likely.

    As our population gross older on average we should expect the actual number of cancers to rise. But take these numbers into account, the so called age-adjusted cancers, and the number of cancers is falling.

    It has been falling for years. Now most cancers are treatable and curable. Survival rates have never been higher.

    So much for blaming pesticides and polution.

    Bjorn Lomberg quoted a UN statistic as follows:

    Out of 1000 cancer deaths.

    350 deaths due to bad diet.

    300 deaths due to smoking.

    100 deaths due to medicine.

    7 deaths due to pollution.

    We are winning the war on cancer.

    Using science and technology.

    Something the anti-science pro-MMCC lobby find hard to accept.


    So, what do you suppose is responsible for more than a quadrupleing of numbers of BOYS since 1960s to 1990s (NOT 65+ old people), but BOYS who are actually BORN WITH and have testicular problems which will enevitably result in higher numbers of testicular cancers.

    As per my comments, over many years the USA carried out the worlds BIGGEST research into cancers and published their findings in the mid 1990s, which found the HIGHER percentage of cancers to be originated not from smoking, or from other causes such as age but to have direct origination from emissions/pollution, namely and mainly diesel pollution.

    Even if someone smokes, most often in the UK their cancer is put down to smoking, which is basically a BLATANT LIE AND DECEPTION in many cases.

    The numbers I quote are factual published statistics by cancer research UK, but I state them as part of and in respect of MANY different illnesses which are attributal to the MAIN point of my comments and this actual subjet name which is emmissions and pollution.

    You are entirely wrong because we are NOT winning the war on cancer, we are just alleviating the problem at great cost by technological advancements which just alleviate suffering for some, mainly in developed countrys. The number of people with cancers in the world is actually growing massively, especially as I mentioned in my earlier comment , in emerging/developing economies such as China/India, and especially in their horrendously polluted citys.

    The reality is that we are basically more and more subsidising pollution via health treatments, at great and growing cost to individuals, economies and countrys, with polluters benefitting and drug companys benefitting but with people being the resultant victims who are then further milked of their wealth and prosperity if they dont want to suffer and die.

    If pollution was not so attrocious, there would NOT be such a HUGE growth in cancers and many other illnesses, hence the drug manufacturers who themselves add to pollution are massively benefitting from pollution, so it might be in some of their interests to continue blaming cigarettes and other issues for cancers/ill health, to divert attention away from the real problems like pollution which they love so much because pollution massively enhances/increases their profits.



 

Page 1 of 8

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.