New Prediction: Earth Could Warm 6.3 Degrees This Century

washingtonpost.com:

Robert Corell, who chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report's scientific findings, said the significant global temperature rise is likely to occur even if industrialized and developed countries enact every climate policy they have proposed at this point. The increase is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change.

Read the whole story: washingtonpost.com

Comments

[texfly]

Hooray -- Hooray!

Finally a good thread with people who seem to know the score! Sorry for the "seem", but I'm always a skeptic whenever there is no indication of training or experience.

Thanks!

[Richard2]

Readers who check the original article in the Washington Post will note that there is a nifty graph on it supposidly showing the trend in temperatures up until now, and then the increases over time that the new IPCC report is predicting. Please take a close look at that chart.

The chart shows a rising line up to the year 2000. Then the line continues to climb as it moves to the right, into the future.

However, what is completely in error is the period between 2000 and 2009. During this period, the earth's temperature did not increase. In fact, it may have declined slightly. This temperature trend, as noted by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times recently, apparently hasn't been noted by the Washington Post writer.

In many professions, it is considered unethical to knowingly mislead the reader concerning factual information. In this case the washingtonpost.com has misled the reader concerning the actual temperature trend of the last ten years. The Washington Post appears to have been unethical in presenting an inaccurate graph of temperature trends. Where this graph originated is unclear. The Washington Post should clarify the history of the graph, and make a factual correction.

[realpolitic]

Does it help you feel better about lying interminably about a supposed lack of temperature increase the last decade by then using words like "niffty?" THE NASA graph of global five year mean in temperature change looks much like a graph of projected increases which extends much further into the future. This idea that temperatures have not risen is a lie only repeated by deniers who then must make yourself feel better by using words like "niffty", like you're our grandpa.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif No temperature decrease here!

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png None here!

Don't buy a used car from Richard who is not only a scientist now, but a media critic!

[Richard2]

Accurate graphs of global temperature changes show graphs with fluctuating increases and decreases, with the peak temperature having been during 1998. The graph in the article at washingtonpost.com takes a broad brush to the subject, with a sweeping, ever rising increase in temperatures. This hides the fact that there are significant fluctuations in temperature overtime, and that from 1998 to the present the earth's temperature has fluctuated at a lower level than the peak from that year.

The change in the overall trend in the earth's temperature, from a rising one to a stable one, post 1998, is a significant change, which has been largely overlooked by the media and the public. The washingtonpost.com could at least contact UAH for their satellite temperature data, in graph format, to post on-line.

[realpolitic]

Ricard, you keep repeating the lie that global temperatures have stabilized since 1998 as if it makes it true.

"Stop repeating this lie. You can't judge the warming trend by picking the largest temperature spike as your baseline. That's cherry picking data to support a predetermined conclusion, which may be fine for science deniers, but it doesn't fly in the world of reason. (It is why it is ignored by the media and sensible people who are not trying to cherrypick data."

"Here's a chart of two sets of temperature data through 2008. As it clearly shows to anyone who isn't politically opposed to knowledge, the warming trend has numerous ups and downs, yet the trend remains."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg

[Richard2]

New Prediction: The earth won't warm even .000001 degree C between 1998 and 2008.

[realpolitic]

Richard, do you the definition of the word "prediction?" Those years have passed so no prediction is necessary. No wonder science gives you such trouble when you are trying to make predictions about the past!

[realpolitic]

Do you know the definition....

[realpolitic]

STFor has found a good intellectual exercise for his denier friends below. He wants you to pick out all the words that start with m. Deniers may not be able to understand science, but they certainlyrecognize a word starting with "m" from one starting with "p." Good exercise, SFT!!

[SFTor]

An excerpt from the article:

"Other findings include the fact that sea level might rise by as much as six feet by 2100 instead of 1.5 feet, as the IPCC had projected, and the Arctic may experience a sea-ice summer by 2030, rather than by the end of the century."

Can anyone find the weasel words in this passage? Clue: they are verbs, and start with the letter m.

[realpolitic]

SFTor, your "m" words are not verbs they are "qualifiers" or "adverbs." They modify a verb. But if you do not know simple things about the language how could you be expeced to follow even relatively straightforward science? It kills me that deniers are so linear minded that you guys can't stand a qualifying word like "maybe." The whole discussion is really more about your psychology than any actual facts. Conservatives can not stand the slightest ambiguity and therefore disdain science.

The really interesting thing is the direction of the projections, going from very bad to much worse!

[Richard2]

Remember that California sea levels have been going down since 1998. This is not someone's prediction.

[realpolitic]

But did you pick out the "m" words? It is all SFT wanted you deniers to do!

[realpolitic]

Richard, why keep up the pretense? California sea waters are no independent of the larger ocean and ocean sea water rise has accelerated since 1992, according to tidal stations and the far more acuurate satellites.

"High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched 1992) and Jason-1 (launched 2001) and Jason-2 (launched 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level of around 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century."


http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

[texfly]

Might and may are the verbs of science, especially when it involves extrapolation. Even an interpolation requires something other than "is". If there is a secure data point at that point in parameter space, science still requires some skepticism about the validity of a single measurement.

The scientific AGW debate is between one group that has 100s of years of correlated data, and another 20+ years of daily data who are trying to extrapolate a very complex system another 100 years down the road. The other group has proxy data covering thousands of millennia but of too low a temporal resolution to assert any consequences or projections other than "it happened before and we're still here". Neither position can claim any intellectual superiority in this debate.

Three “scientific” questions society seeks answers to are: 1) how high will sea levels rise 2) where will agriculturally viable lands be located and 3) will energy resources be available when climate changes (cold or hot). The answer is not in the thermometer readings, infrared flux balance, CO2 levels. The answer is “keep you eyes open” and watch.

[Richard2]

These questions don't appear framed in a scientific way. The proper scientific questions would seem to be:

1. Will sea levels rise, or fall, and by how much? Will the impact be positive or negative?

2. Will agricultural land be impacted by the sea level rise, or fall? Will the impact be positive or negative?

3. Will energy sources be available if the sea levels rise, or fall?

[Richard2]

Is there any possibility this study is somhow connected to the breaking Yamal Tree ring Controversy, which has broken out over the apparent selective use of a few tree samples out of a much larger pool of data to arrive at indications of accelerated global warming?

[realpolitic]

The "Yamal Tree ring Controversy" is the biggest controverst since the faked Apollo moon landing! We know they faked the moon landing!

[realpolitic]

Concerning the make-believe Yumal "controversy" on RealClimate....

"The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip."

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=realclimate+&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2F

[Richard2]

The tree ring data was released this month, nine years after the publication of the original research, and nine years after it was generally accepted by the IPCC as signifiant proof of AGW. The data only became available because the Royal Society forced its release.

The fact that the information was not released until now is significant. Why the delay?

The fact that the Royal Society was involved is also significant. Perhaps the climate model creators will be pressured to release their notes and analyses, for review and replication purposes.

[realpolitic]

Richard, who gave you a license to just make things up? Where does the iPCC say that this tree ring data is or is not significant proof of AGW. Of course, they do not and you just made it up. The Yumal tree ring data was compiled by two Russian sceintists and has been available on the web as a data base since 2003. Here is a link to it.

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2003-029.html

The Real Climate site written by actual scientists calls this episode

"More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record."

.

[realpolitic]

"A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability."

"The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you won’t generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere)."

****

"So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Only uneducated deniers would pretend so much rides on one proxy record

[SFTor]

YAD061, the most influential tree in the world.

Look it up. This should interest everyone who follows the climate change debate.

[realpolitic]

How many m's in there?

[Exusian]

And on the heels of the UNEP study this from the UK's Hadely Met office:

"UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years" under current business-as-usual CO2 emissions.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/28/uk-met-office-catastrophic-climate-change-could-happen-with-50-years/#more-11977

[realpolitic]

Excellent post!

[guinganbresil]

I hate to be a pest - but I am learning something...

From way down in the thread you mentioned increasing altitude of the "effective radiating altitude" due to increasing CO2 is the root cause of AGW - Did I understand correctly?

From the 2nd law of thermo, the "effective radiating altitude" would be at the tropopause (coldest point - has to be...). If this is the case, the temperature lapse rate at the tropopause is zero, so I don't see the impact on the outgoing flux at 15 um. I agree that the tropopause might move UP slightly, but I don't see how it gets hotter/colder (yet...?)

See the article on MSU's, it talks about this in a non-AGW context.

http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-00/ceos1/science/dg/dg20.htm

[ReedYoung]

If radiation was effectively radiating at a lower altitude, then it was also able to radiate more at that time than now. The higher that "effective radiating altitude" moves, the thinner the slice of the atmosphere that is radiating, so less of Sun's heat ever goes back to space.

[texfly]

I made the following analogy elsewhere. It might apply here:

A global warming analogy: Think about the insulauion of your house. The thicker the insulation the warmer your home gets for a given burn-rate of heating fuel. CO2 is making earth's insulation thicker (actaully quite literally) since it is a PERMANENT gas.

Water condenses, CO2 doesn't. Water has a mechanism to keep its net "insulation value" fairly constant. But not CO2, it will continue to increase in thickness AND efficiency (concentration). And guess what? Water will also increase in thickness as the tropsphere swells. And more heat will be trapped.

The thicker layer may have more serious implications. If it thickens by 10%, the concentration of O2, (the life sustaining gas) DECREASES by 10% form 21% to 19% . That will cause a considerable global headache (until we evolve). Romeo, will say that the more CO2, the more O2 because the plants will make it. But let's see how he answers, the test below. (ASked Romeo to expalins 'ReedYoung"s thumbnail ID below.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/texfly?action=comments&display=all&sort=newest

[guinganbresil]

A better analogy might be like looking through 10 panes of glass.
As CO2 goes up, it is like spray painting the first pane - you can still see through it at first , but soon it is completely black. The next pane is now being painted, soon it is black. Pane after pane is painted until you are at the sixth pane - that one you paint so it is ~50% covered, the seventh pane is ~25% covered, the eighth ~10%. Keep the last two clear. (Linear scale WAY off - it IS an analogy...)

From the inside looking out it is black. Painting panes 1 - 5 more doesn't change anything - they are already black.

When you look from the outside in, you can see through 10, 9 & 8, some of 7, less of 6 and a hint of 5. You cannot see 1 - 5. If you think about which pane "matters" to someone driving by, it would be a mix of panes 8, 7, 6 & 5, with 7 & 6 mattering most. Now if we add more paint - shifting everything out, now 8 & 7 matter most. From the INSIDE nothing changes. From the OUTSIDE the only difference is the difference between panes 6 & 7 vs. 7 & 8.

With increasing CO2, the difference between 6 & 7 and 7 & 8 is just a few hundred meters in altitude (for 15 um only), and no difference in temperature (the tropopause

[guinganbresil]

Lets look at data. Lapse Rate Tropopause (LRT) on figure 6.

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/News18/18_Seidel.html

It looks like the tropopause temperature is falling very slightly, and the altitude is roughly constant from 1978 - 1998...

The tropopause is a heat sink - heat flows up from the troposphere and down from the stratosphere and leaves the system by IR radiation on average centered on the tropopause.

If the tropopause is cooler and all else is the the same, the heat flow out of the system must be HIGHER... larger Delta T's between tropospher­e/stratosp­here and tropopause...

Lets look at the outgoing long wave - if I am right it should be INCREASING... Look at the bottom graph:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt1.gif

Keep in mind that the label on the vertical is NOT standard deviation (sigma) it is standardized data - they blew the label. Don't believe me - please plot the data and compare to the graph, you will LOVE the way it is layed out ;(

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr

[Exusian]

guinganbresil, It is good that you are posing questions and learning by doing so. May I suggest two references that should be helpful in finding answers:

David Archer's Global Warming; Understanding the Forcast
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/our-books/#Archer06

and

Ray Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate
Not yet completed, but current draft of text and workbook and on-line recources available here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

Good link to the LLNL page, btw.

[Exusian]

Oh, look, yet another energy producer quits the US Chamber of Commerce over it's climate change denial policy:

"Nation’s largest utility pulls the plug on the Chamber over climate denial. Exelon CEO Rowe says, “Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/28/exelon-leaves-chamber-of-commerce/

[Emucrat]

I h'ate the title. That's exactly the attitude that brought us into this hole. Global warming is the most serious issue of this century and i hope politicians will finally realize that by the end of the decade. Everything after that will be too late.

Just 40 more years, then I will be able to spit on their graves because every second they ignored global warming will have cost hundreds of lives that could be rescued. There is no excuse for that.

[NL207]

I refer you to another, earlier prediction of doom and disaster: "The Population Bomb" by Dr. Paul Ehrlich.

Just about nothing Ehrlich predicted in this piece of work came to pass. I further submit the works of our present climate alarmists share accuracy with Ehrlich's work.

[texfly]

I wouldn't rush to such conclusions about Ehrlich's predictions. I has always been clear that population growth per se is not the dominat issue. The issue is how many resources does that population consume. We have seen that the more affluent socities that consume the most generally have smaller birth rates and there is a primal reason the poor have higher birth rate. But it's the "middle class life style" of consuming 10 times more energy per-capita than third world nations that the is the key factor.

The problem is, as Thos. Freidman points out in "Hot, Flat and Crowded", the number of "Americums" ( a unit of populations that consumes 25% of current global energy) is growing. It's the amount of energy per person that is key, and China's transition into a massive production economy will grow "Americums" faster and faster.

[rblackbird]

Spit on their graves? We are entering a solar minimum of possible long duration, as indicated by the drop-off in solar activity. 40 years from now there may be too much ice and snow even to find their graves.

[ScottWynn]

Veganism is the only way to solve this crisis. Vegan world coming soon baby!

[Emucrat]

BS, not only that. Extreme environmentalism is the solution. A 180 degrees turn towards renewable energy, sustainable development and more regulations to pets and companies.
We should also begin to stop eating rice as it creates critical amounts of methan that warm up the earth twice as fast as carbon dioxide emissions.

[econ1]

6.3 seems to be a bit over precise, but in any event, if we don't do something about population growth, the rest is very unlikely to succeed. If we do reduce population growth it will make all the global warming efforts more effective as well as reduce over crowding, hunger, water issues, pollution etc..

[ReedYoung]

You'd be surprised how good climate predictions have gotten. Year-to-year data will always show fluctuations, such as the "cooling" since 1998 or 2005, but that's because the Sun's output fluctuates on a 9-to14 year cycle, usually about 11. For trends encompassing several such cycles and using the Sun's average output, we now have a "simple linear relationship."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

[Richard2]

If predictions have gotten better, can you please:

identify someone who ten years ago publically predicted that the global temperature would not increase over the first decade of the 21st century?

identify someone who publically predicted that the sea level trend along the California coast would show a decline from the peak level of 1998 to its current level?

[texfly]

Gee, Svante Arrhenius back in 1898 predicted a CO2 induced temperature rise of 5.3 degrees based on his simple radiation model. Reminds me a whole lot of the hsitory of O3 depletion by CFCs.

[RomeoMD25]

I just love the fact that humans on either side of the debate think that their personal opinion is so heavily validated because of their core belief structure. The debate is emotional reasoning at its worst. What makes me gobsmacked is the sheer amount of doomsayers who know absolutely nothing other than the OPINIONS of the very sides that have arguments to fit their own.

Wake up and research the truth and form an opinion the deserves respect and representation. Both Sides!

[shockmagog]

Your lame attempt at False Comparison puts you firmly in the fact-free AGW denialist camp.

Phony all the way.

[NL207]

How appropriate! A Clown photo!

[texfly]

Romeo, YOU are a prime example of what you preach. Absolutely no scientific background. Totally botching the fundamentals of CO2 in the atmosphere (remember the heavier than air balogna?).

There are a few here that are worth listening to, but you are not one of them.

[texfly]

BREAKING NEWS! THIS JUST IN!

CO2 and and water vapor no longer leading cause of AGW. Scientists at the Heartland Institute ( http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/ ) have just found that RomeoMD25 produces 50x more hot air than these two greenhouse gases comnined.

[SonofLiberty1]

Neverthele­ss....they keep coming back to preach their own gospel...
One of death not life....

[rblackbird]

What are your scientific credentials? Do you have any college or university science degrees? I so, what institutions and in what fields? Have you been published in any scientific journals or have you written any scientific books? Are you a member of any learned scientific society? What precisely is your credential in climatology?

By the way, what do you think of the new Yamal controversy?

[SonofLiberty1]

Data doesn't have opinions

[texfly]

Data says nothing ... interpretation does

Interpretation of data allows data to come into question as much as data allows interpreation of data to come into question

My favorite:
Bullets kill , data don't

[Pharos]

Why don't you ever answer the questions you are asked. You make statements that contradict basic scientific concepts and ignore everyone that points out your errors.

[realpolitic]

You mention humans on either side of the debate, but what about yaks? How do they stack up?

[poomplet]

#2 Over 31,000 scientist agree Climate Change science inconclusive: http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/LetUsDebate.html

BTW, Heartland inst. is NOT a hard-right org, it's Libertarian.

[shockmagog]

Wrong (and beside the point anyway):

'Our research into the listed "sponsors" for the Heartland Institute's upcoming "International Conference on Climate Change" finds that these organizations have received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of foundations.'

'According to the Media Transparency project the Scaife Family of Foundations is, "financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation. According to a recent article, 'In 1993, the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations...gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks.'"'

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institutes-2009-climate-conference-new-york-funding-history-sponsors

Isn't it funny how conservatives aren't really interested in conserving.

[NL207]

How much money have the Climate Alarmists received in recent years from various governments and how much of that would be cut from future appropriations if politicians and people thought "global warming" was not a crisis? Hint: The number is > $1,000,000,000,000.

Do you seriousy expect us to believe this river of government cash is producing objective results? I think it will produce just about zero results that call for it's interruption. In plain English, grantees and government workers are likely to produce no reports that overtly identify human caused global warming as minor, non-existant, or non-threatening and any who do will be excluded from further grants as a therat to teh livelyhoods of the rest.

[Exusian]

BTW, that list of 31,000 has been shown to be a bogus fabrication put together by the pseudoscience Oregon Institute of Science that includes the names of long-dead movie stars, cartoon characters, dentists, gynecologists, and other non-scientists.

Only the most gullible fall for it.

[rockymountainhigh]

geee...if that is the case, it sounds like they must have gotten a hold of some Acorn voter regiatration lists....

[Exusian]

Newsflash:

That list of 31,000 names comes from a bogus petition originated by the wingnut pseudo-science Oregon Institute of Science [sic], and includes the names of long-dead movie stars and other personalities, cartoon characters, dentists, gynecologists, economists and other non-scientists.

It isn't even an appeal to authority, but rather an appeal to gullibility.

[realpolitic]

Heartland lies repeatedly! All day!!! You can bank on it!!!

[poomplet]

#1

EPA covers up/quashes report/study suggesting Global Warming science inconclusive: http://www.heartland.org/full/25551/EPA_Suppresses_Internal_Global_Warming_Study.html

[Exusian]

You mean the "report" plagiarized from global warming/climate change denial websites put together by EPA economist Alan Carlin?

Again, only the gullible fall for this nonsense.

[realpolitic]

Deniers bring out whatever nonsense they possibly can.

[ReedYoung]

ECONOMIST JUDGED BY BOSS NOT QUALIFIED TO DISPUTE PHYSICAL SCIENCE

Carlin and his main collaborator have no published, peer reviewed work to their credit in the subjects they presumed to "correct" their betters in science. Carlin's job is to take what others have proven about climate science, including their margins of error (he argued, inasmuch as his rambling can even be flattered by describing it as an "argument," that their margins of error are much greater than they really are), and based on that estimate the economic impacts of allowing climate change to continue unrestrained, by making no changes in energy policy. He simply failed to do his job, and he is not a scientist. Despite his Bachelors in physics, his post-graduate degree, and his career, have been in economics.

[PhilipTaylor]

What is the DOWN SIDE OF BEING WRONG?

1. Assume NO CLIMATE CHANGE AND IT HAPPENS:

Answer: More islands and coast lines are covered/flooded! Solutions take years more to develop and crops fail in 0k1ahoma and other farm states. Food and grain shortages occur and prices skyrocket! America falls behind other nations due to high costs of Energy. China uses low energy costs to their advantage in manufacturing and exports and USA deficits grow!

2. Assume Climate Change is Happening and IT DOES NOT:

Answer: America stops importing 01L with average of 55 MPG and wind and solar energy providing 50% of all Electric Power. America's cost advantages power new Manufacturing Revolution and Exports skyrocket. The deficit drops and average income increases with a shortage of workers to fill all the new technology positions!

Some how I think the DOWNSIDE in scenario 2 is NOT SO BAD!

Let those that want to believe Scenario 1 do so at their OWN RISK! The rest of us should GET to WORK NOW!

[PhilipTaylor]

LET 01L TRADERS/REPUBLICANS DENY CLIMATE CHANGE - THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING AND NOTHING CAN STOP IT!

Much like the early innovative days when automobiles were first being developed.

We need dozens and dozens of ELECTRIC CAR competitors to spur innovation in NEW car technology!

An exciting time for Engineers and technologists!

“In MA we had a lithium-ion battery company go public raising $350 million on day one. They are a leader in battery innovation for automobiles."

What will happen to BIG 01L and this must be a 1-2 punch in the Gut!

15 mpg to 35 mpg to 99 mpg to 230 mpg to 300 mpg to electric = 0IL imports drop like a rock!

100 to 300 mpg for hybrids and electric cars have to make traders want to sell 0IL NOW!

Going from a SUV with 15 mpg to 300 mpg is a 2,000% improvement in FUEL Efficiency!
__________ __________ _____

Gas prices in 2008 were $5 per gallon in California and $6 per gallon in Canada!

If you drive say 20,000+ miles per year the savings are large!

Moving from a SUV or Truck to a high mileage 40+mpg care makes sense in many ways!

[RomeoMD25]

The global warming scam passed by Congress. Goldman Sachs is in the middle of it, as usual– a potential trillion dollar sure thing.

And Former Vice President Al Gore who will profit from the cap-and-trade plan through his company, Generation Investment Management,–
Gore is joined by three former Goldman Sachs heads in their carbon offsets business.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/7

just follow the money!!

The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas.

[RomeoMD25]

Furthermore, you leave out that big corporations, especially big oil, actually support the global warming hoax because it helps them eliminate their competition who can’t afford the taxes while big oil gets the big grants from the tax payer to reduce and meet emission standards.
shut up. obey. pay your carbon taxes to the trillionaires at the world bank so we can enslave, i mean save, planet earth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/the-top-10-lobbyists-on-t_n_205868.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-20-climate-change-lobbying/

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=209877&page=2