Comments on: Yet more scientists call for deep GHG cuts

By: Bob Paye

Bob Paye — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:37:43 +0000

I hear coal isn’t good to burn , hope they will fade out, less coal, more for winds mill and sun solar panel.

But here thing they don’t want you to know about. That Burning wood, either in your fire place or wood burner, or fire pit, it create just as much CO2. and cause headache, rash under eyes and health problem. There no such thing as burning clean wood or fresh wood. it all create some sort of pollution.
EPA won’t take a stand to fade them out. One reason is there too many hillbilly or city redneck can’t pay for their heating bills so go on burning wood. So can have more money buying beers and drugs. at same time kill everyone around them. So alone it just not Coal or gasoline doing all. were on destruction coarse or green house effect.
America have a lot un-educated people who just don’t care.

By: Dano

Dano — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:00:01 +0000

Ronald,

Society is a huge ship to turn. We will be bickering about whether the new heading should be 132 or 133 degrees, in part because the FUD purveying machine (manifestly evident on the DotEarth thread [Marc Morano desperately advertising for a job at a CEI-Heritage-Scaife companyafter his boss is ousted]) profits by sowing dissent.

Of course, society already knows the heading is somewhere between 135 and 145, and the ship of society is already turning in that direction, but there’s still a lot of discussion about a more precise heading. And individuals who stand out are going to get a flamethrower pointed at them (e.g. Schellenberger and Nordhaus here, the Algore at RedState), so asking individuals who normally work out of the public spotlight to do something against their nature is a nice idea, but impractical on the ground for most.

Best,

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:27:57 +0000

50% is global # — may not be enough.
60% to 80% is rich country target.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:34:15 +0000

50% cut within the century is century is pretty modest. Most seem to be calling for 60-80% by 2050 instead of 50% by 2100. Does anyone know where AGU gets its numbers?

By: Ronald

Ronald — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:18:50 +0000

Okay, great, another multi-thousand member science organization comes out to say that global warming is a problem and we should do something about it.

So what.

Just add it to the list of the other multi-thousand member science organizations that have said the same thing.

Is this organization willing to do something other than issue a proclamation? Raise any money for the political or informational fight? Ask members to buy and drive fuel efficient vehicles? Ask them to eat less meat? Conventions in different cities in different hotels and use simulcast so nobody has to fly to the conventions?

Anything?

Who am I to be raising all these questions and that’s true. But if all this stuff about global warming being such a problem for future generations and the huge majority of these people have children and thus should have some concern for the future, why isn’t more being done and more isn’t being picked up by the mainstream media?

If the proclamation means anything, it should be easy to get each person in the organization to donate a thousand dollars to fight global warming. That’s cheap for a human future. Where is the general concern?

By: Dano

Dano — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:44:29 +0000

BTW, here is a commentary by an Inhofe 400 “prominent Scientists from more than two dozen countries” about his own credentials*.

Hillll-arious.

Best,

* “I am in fact one of that 400…no I am not a climatologist (whatever that is), nor a meteorologist, not a geologist, or astrophysicist, not a historian (to read science out of historical records); not an expert on corals(which grow in water not air), not a tree ring counter; …No I’m not a University Professor, … I don’t even have a PhD “