Polar caps are melting, but the leading polar bear expert says that the number of polar bears has increased. So, why are we listening to politicians that want to take our money.

Let’s work towards cleaner solutions, but Cap and Trade is not the way to go.

Last year was colder (not warmer) than most. Is Global Cooling now the fault of CO2 also? So, how long is a trend? There are people who think that if it doesn’t rain three years in a row, it’ll never rain again. Granted, this anecdotal, from idle chat with neighbors in California. But how many years of records should scientists be looking at before declaring a trend? If you look back through history, the climate was warm enough in Greenland for the Vikings to colonize. Did the polar caps start melting over 1000 years ago, and flood the coastal regions?

The problem with cap and trade was illustrated in Freakonomics. Day cares in Isreal found that parents were often late to pick up their children. They measured the average number of late arrivals, then introduced a fine of $5/day. What happened? The number of lates more than doubled. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time, parents now considered whether or not they could afford to be late. And many of them could.

I would be happy if everyone cared for our environment. There are more forces at work than man-made pollution, but that’s not a reason for us to mindlessly destroy our environment. Cap and trade is a dangerous solution, though, because there’s a risk it could diminish the moral argument against pollution and increase the total damage.

What?!! Since when have we had to wait for China and India to be leaders in a situation? This is such a flimsy smokesceen for not wanting to actually do anything.

And what is the deal with putting so much blame on developing countries for their FUTURE pollution? When developed countries have commited the most damage in the last century?

Any international deal should accomodate how much pollution a country has contributed when assigning a value to how much help their citizens should be providing.
Randalynn

Climate Change implies the results of Global Warming. That your climate can literally CHANGE. Global Warming can cause changes in long term weather patterns.

What if Saskatchewan went from being a farming province to experiencing less and less rainfall and maybe drought?

What if other ares atarted getting dumped on with rain and experiencing floods?

Mother Nature would adapt over time (100′s of years) to new ecosystems, but it sure puts a crimp in our human lifestyle to have to start moving our civilisations around to accomodate new Climates.

Randalynn

Because “Global Warming” is so 1990.

Because some people said “Getting warmer — great for us!”

Because climate is wider than just warm and cool — it’s about the hurricanes, the draughts, the rising seas.

But mostly because a lot of people can’t think globally and see the big picture — they only see what happens in their own back yard (if that!).

If man has not caused climate change, then is there anything that can be done other than to build dykes to cope with expected higher ocean levels?

The whole issue may be built on a foundation of sand. Why should we believe a US politician about any important subject?

So what if the ice melts at the poles? What good things could result from this change?

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?