Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
Newsweek – March 12, 2007 issue
An interesting discussion on the concept of trading emissions between governments and companies so that the world can make its goals of reducing CO2 emissions. This is a great read if you believe that humans can change the climate by reducing CO2 output.
Al Gore: A responsible approach to solving this crisis would be to authorize the trading
of emissions … globally.
the value of carbon credits in circulation, now about $28 billion, will climb to $40 billion by 2010
The notion that emissions trading is going to make a significant dent in global warming is deeply flawed
…allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world
JunkScience.com – April 21, 2006
This is a very long article that has quite a few good points in it. The article is a series of questions and answers on the subject. The author’s goals were to try and put some simple facts behind many of the myths and rumors regarding weather and the things that influence the weather.
This article should be standard reading for anyone that is interested in the details behind global warming.
Only the structure constraining internal-external convection will function as an effective greenhouse. Greenhouse gases categorically do not inhibit convective activity and so are not like a physical greenhouse.
The Christian Science Monitor – February 20, 2007
This is a very interesting article that continues the thought process that methane is the worst offender in the battle of the greenhouse gases. The article contends that the huge livestock populations produce waste which produces methane in quantities that the environment cannot handle. The solution is to change the diet of a large portion of the population so that we need less livestock and therefore less of their waste.
While this is an interesting proposition, I am not sure that the science is 100% sound and I also am not sure that the cost is worth the benefit. There is no explanation of how to provide the nutrients that are needed by the human population without livestock.READ MORE
NewScientist.com news service – February 17, 2007
This article deals with the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) by sequestering it underground. It is a fairly brief article without a lot of details on how this could be done, its costs, nor are the side effects adequately explored.
On 10 February, an amendment to international law came into force that allows the greenhouse gas to be buried beneath the sea floor. At the same time, a new study counters one of the main fears over carbon burial – that the gas will simply leak out again, to boost future global warming.