"I won't get into the politics of it as it just causes a lot of liberals that for some reason frequent this thread."

I think you are, at least in part, mistaking "liberals" and "conservatives that actually give a $hit about conservation".

The EPA has nothing to do with our faltering economy. It's "globalism." Treating the PRC -- Communist China -- the world's biggest centrally planned economy -- as though it's just another open market player in the WTO was a huge error. As is failing to retaliate against any nation that imposes trade barriers against US goods.

Play hardball on trade, and American manufacturing jobs will increase. As more people are employed, they'll spend, and it will circulate throughout our economy.

Another good idea: Don't spend $400Bn per year making other nations safe courtesy of the US Armed Forces. That's basically $400Bn of subsidies that other nations don't have to pay (and get from their own citizens or industries) because the US taxpayer is the one who has to pay for all that.

The House of Reps can vote all they want. It takes a Senate vote and a Presidential signature to put any force behind their desires. Was I the President I'd tell them to go to hell.

Sayfu.
If that happens, it will be a serious mistake. Making permanent decisions regarding our environment (if you don't think they are permanent, do a little reading on fish stocks in Lake Michigan since the introduction of the sea lamprey, zebra/quagga mussels, etc) due to a temporary economic situation is doing a huge disservice to everyone that comes after us.

"For one, the market doesn't make mistakes. The market does what it needs to do to stay afloat."

Sayfu,
This statement assumes that our economy is in the $hithole due to excessive environmental regulation, and that rolling back those regulations will get the thing back on track. If you really think our current economic situation was caused by the EPA, you are nuts.

Clean energy projects need to be carefully developed and planned in a smart manner to minimize any potential negative impact on habitat and wildlife.

You can't just throw wind turbines and solar power plants in any ol' spot without studying it's potential impact.

When there's money involved (which there is in everything), developers want a speedy project so they can head on over to the bank as soon as possible. That's not going to work. There are right ways and wrong ways to pursue clean energy.

and Labrador, care to elaborate on your "Solar will devestate whatever area it is put into" nonsense?

@Sayfu -- Croney Capitalism and market distorting subsidies are why you have Big Coal in the USA. Renewables would be highly competitive with fossil fuels if fossil fuels were not so outlandishly subsidized as they presently are. Gov. Schwarzenegger had a very good op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post on precisely this subject.

Sorry, Ranger, your hunches are incorrect. To make a very long story very short, I use climate data alot in my job. Both modern and paleo/proxy. There are three solar cycles of importance and yes they do affect surface temperatures. There's also something called a "Milankovic Cycle" which shows that surface temperatures on earth vary over very very very long periods based on the orbital path of the Earth, and whether perigee or apogee coincides with the Northern Hemisphere Summer.

Regrettably, NONE of the solar cycles nor Milankovic cycles account for the current warming trend. Indeed, by the solar cycles and Milankovic Cycle we should be *cooling* not *warming.*

The upshot of all that is that the current warming trend is *definitely, conclusively, and unrebukably* atttributable to CO2 forcing. That's it. It's very simple, it's real, and anyone who says otherwise does not know the data at all, nor the elematary physics as to how CO2 traps solar radiation (which results in heating).

The only open questions are as follows: How Much Heating? By When? What will the effects be?

And of course "Will we all wind up paying more to mitigate the effects than we would pay if we worked to reduce the amount of CO2 forcing going on out there?"

Anyone caught without a plan will be up s**t creek with no means of propulsion. If the US is caught without a plan, at least if you're smart your state, county or community will have a plan. If it gets as bad as it MIGHT get, I won't be sacrificing my money or food assets to save people who spent their time denying the occurrence of CO2 forcing and not preparing for the results.

"Likewise, having an understanding of historical temperatues over the course of human history is helpfull for evaluating the global warming controversy."

I have that understanding. I am deeply familiar with the historically measured temperatures and the temperature proxies extending back 60 *million* years. Our current warming trend is unprecedented during that interval.

One thing we can all agree on: All spammers should be gassed.

sayfu: Guess who is one of the biggest investors in solar energy in the world. The Peoples Republic of China (PRC). And they are part owners in plants being built in the good old USA right now. How do I know? I used to own shares in a company that PRC (and one of their banking shells) did a hostile take over on. PRC isn't investing if they don't see a trend. Solars coming. We either get on board or that train will pass us by.

We can't get rid of fossil fuels yet, and to an extent maybe never, but just as the energy wasteful incandescent bulb is being replaced with the efficient LED light, that day is coming, Gee, add a little economic pressure, like a recession and there are a whole lot of energy resources sudden just popping up. Huh? How about that.? Funny how we just keep getting distracted by ads from big oil, big coal, and big farm and our representatives keep getting distracted by cash from their lobbyist.

Climate question: When was the last ice age? Trick question: We are still in it. Climate changes. And I may not be a meteorologist but I have a sneaking suspicion that sun spots cause more climate change then man does, and I believe I read (and I may need to be corrected) that sun spots are affected by the region of space the solar system transits, But just like bacteria in a septic tank, if we consume all of our available resources and trash our environment, we will in the end destroy ourselves. So it really doesn't matter what the cause of global warming is. It is a moot point. The answer is the same, we either start getting real efficient with our resources and taking care of our environment or eventually we will become the bacteria in the septic tank.

Labrador- you're job isn't to show the "other side." Your a biologist for crying out loud. Big oil and gas doesn't need your help. They spend millions on PR, advertising and political contributions. Maybe you should start defending things worth defending.

I don't buy your small surface foot print in oil production argument either. How about the extremely large foot print as a result of oil consumption?

The idea that you'd run a farm on fracked land and call it organic is the EXACT reason why we need organic labeling. I'm not talking about the USDA Organic label either, that's been bought and sold by agrocorps. I'm referring to independent labels like QAI, NOFA etc.

Voters may vote for the same candidate as you- sure, so what? Heck, I'm sure we've voted for the same candidate in past elections. That doesn't mean they're all in agreement with your stance on conservation v. the economy and it sure as hell doesn't make it correct.

If you know the name of the book I could tell you more. For solar and milankovic cycles there are alot of sources on the web. Even the Wikipedia entries are pretty good. If you want a published academic source that gives you the nuts n bolts, I recommend Paleoclimatology: reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary, 2nd edition, by Bradly. That won't take you back through the Jurassic or anything like that but it will take you to the beginning of the Pliocene.

Anyhow, what the paleoclime record shows is that the current atmospheric ppm CO2 levels have not been seen in the last, IIRC, 10Million years, and temperature seems to be going up in accordance with that as expected. Probably the NOAA website has more info on this at a general summary level.

The computer models are essentially attempts to forecast the future based on past data. On a really really big scale they work well. On a local scale they stink of course because weather anywhere is usually a consequence of the interaction of both climate and local conditions. The problems with the models are that the entire global heat distribution is a dambed complicated thing to try to model. It's the kind of thing that required multiple Crays or Thinking Machines or stuff on that scale. It's not easy to do with one PC. You can do it, probably, with a bunch of PCs, and if you give them time to run. But even then, they are only powerful enough to model what's going on in the atmosphere and in near-surface ocean waters. Trying to model what happens to the currents in the downwelling and upwelling zones is a HUGE pain in the patootie.

I really would not worry about some massive conspiracy of bribe taking climate scientists. Kind of like Area 51, the Roswell UFO, and the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, it's hard to imagine that many people managing to keep the conspiracy under wraps, especially when you consider that so many people work for so many different and usually competing institutions. If someone in the UK were really faking their data, there'd be a thousand American university profs looking to be the one to expose them in *Nature* or *Science*, just for the notch on their CV. ;)

If only we could pollute some more all of our economic problems would be solved.

Sorry Symbiotic. NOT symbolic.

And before someone commentsL AIG ran exhaustive computer models that determined that they could NEVER lose money in credit default swaps. My point is computer models are great predictors, but not flawless because you can never capture all the potential inputs

just remember folks we have a president who now wants to worry about the gay rights of other countries such as afghanistan as it was said on abc news last night tues 12/6. really? like we don't have enough $hit to worry about in our own country? why do we spend $400b on countries to feel safe...like pakistan who was letting bin laden hide in there for what approx 10 yerars? as a country we are stupid, naive or both. eventually there will be nothing left, our dollar worthless, and our way of life right down to our relgion a thing of the past unless someone has the balls to stand up and re-vamp the entire system.

Burning salt water with radio waves to produce clean energy? interesting stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8utkoK2DhA&feature=share

Oops--should be "reining" it in.

Whose data do you use Mike. If I were you I would be very concerned about what looks to be manipulation of data released to the public. Both modern and paleo/proxy seems to be corrupted to one degree or another. I agree that how much, when, and effects are important. I suspect that your fears are overblown based on the failure of the models predictive powers at this point in time.

There is a difference between abolishing the EPA and simply reigning it in to levels before the Obama Administration took over. I recently read, I think in The Weekly Standard, that the EPA currently is working on 4,200 new regulations! Now, that is insanity!

According to the Climategate emails you are more confident tham most of the believers in THE CAUSE that write the IPCC reports.

Correction..I should have said Republicans and Democrats alike rejected the carbon tax. Many liberals still wanted it imposed.

I don't need a government certification to farm organically. Organic farming is a process not a government program. Certification is just another way to game the system. Have you ever read anything about the first oil boom in Pa? The recovery in that area is mind bogling. Its unfortunate that mags like F&S don't show the recovery of resources instead of labeling all industry as the secound coming of Mordor. Likewise, having an understanding of historical temperatues over the course of human history is helpfull for evaluating the global warming controversy. Having a fifty year study of the claims of climate scientists and Big Green is revealing as to the accuracy of their claims today. Big Green has access to billions of dollars and doesn't have to answer to their stockholders.

Right...Congress REJECTED liberals attempt to impose a carbon tax on industry, a heavy tax that would have the USA in more financial ruin then we are presently in., and I won't go on to tell you what they would have done with the revenue. It was part of the man induced,global warming scam..Congress rejected it both conservatives, and liberals alike. But the EPA has seen a way to implement it into regulation. Fine Pro-American organization that EPA...and it will be re-organized at the least.

What isn't a "wildlife sensitive area?" There is wildlife of one kind or another on just about every square inch of this planet. When golden eagles are killed by windmills they not of interest. Solar will devestate whatever area it is put into. That is indisputable!!

RealGood. Clean energy can only work when the private sector sees the profit, not a policy subsidized by the taxpayer through govt involvement. Results?..corrupt, liberal crony capitalism. Rich contributors have gotten richer as a payback for their large contribution, and the energy isn't profitable. Virtually EVERY solar plant was provided tax payer money to rich contributors that run, or own the operation. Spain tried the govt. tax payer subsidized approach, and told Obama that for every ONE job that the govt created with tax payer money they lost TWO real jobs because of it...Spain dropped the policy, but we continue down that same path.

Bob..Please. The economy is in the crapper for many reasons. But the EPA is a HUUUUUGE reason. Now unions are mad at the EPA folks, and the President for supporting the environmentalists for preventing the oil pipeline from Canada. Makes no difference that measures would be taken to comply with liberal demands where the line would go through a sensitive area in Nebraska. Unions point out that 20,000 high paying, union jobs will be lost, and 115,000 other jobs associated with the pipeline like suppliers. And this is but one example of many, many obstructionist positions the EPA has taken. Meanwhile union jobs run at 16% unemployment.