Links 7/30: Drug Lobby, Poverty in Iraq, US Sells Arms to the Gulf, Schumer Helps Hedge Funds, Obama on the Environment, Climate Change & Hurricanes

Another arms deal for our “allies” in the middle east. When will we learn?

“And new research is strengthening the connection between climate change, warmer waters, and what appears to be increasing numbers (and intensities) of hurricanes.”

Last year we were told to get ready for one of the worst years ever. And it was actually one of the quietest years ever
It still amazes me how these guys are running around screaming about something that is supposed to happen years from now. And they cant even get the up-coming year right. I mean really folks, how plain and simple does it have to be ?

Micky, you know that’s a terrible argument. One year does not prove or disprove the rule. It is about trends, not one year or another. The trend is bad. Check out http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-5817067-7.html

Kerry Emanuel, professor of meteorology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, analyzed records of tropical cyclones–commonly called hurricanes or typhoons–from the middle of the 20th century in the North Pacific and North Atlantic and found that the duration of the cyclones and the highest wind speeds have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.

That’s the trend. What happens this year means little. If the trend reverses, then we can start examining that.

Its not as much an arguement as it is a point.How can you claim to be able to predict a trend in ten or twenty years, when the last prediction based on only a years forecast was wrong ? Any fool can say that something different is going to happen, for better or worse.
I understand that these trends will of course take time.
And I do not deny global warming.
But is it all really mans fault is my big question.
Are these trends a natural progression or cycle ?
The natural cycles are definately provable and should be examined in the context of mans contribution to it.
Not just it always being mans fault.
How is it gauranteed that all the measures proposed and the ones already installed are going to help prevent natures plans ?
We should all do what it takes , no matter what the blame.
But I strongly oppose having my whole life being turned around and dictated to me ontop of the cost already imposed on me, based on an arguement that is still not conclusive.
In the 70s we came to the rock solid conclusion that carbon emissions were effecting peoples health, there was no denying it. And measures were put in place, rightfully so, and I respect them. Do those measures need to be increased ? I think so. Because the evidence is and was undeniably real. But the key word is “IS”
{ God I sound like Clinton}
I have a house to pay for,a 12 year old boy,a wife , 2 dogs and retirement to worry about ontop of now not knowing how I will afford my sons college. All the above mentioned is being hurt badly just by the rise in todays food costs. So anybody can call me what they want, but when you have all these things and people that depend on you it creates an incredible strain that has not yet been justified. Those of you you that are single have absolutly no idea what its like to have everything you have worked for shot to hell in a year. In my case I reserve every right to pitch a fit and ask all the questions at my disposal.
This is one of the “PSYCHOLOGIES OF A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER” { in reference to one of your other articles}
It is not a deranged thought process to question it, as a lot of snotty pro warming advocates would like to have us think. The lifestyles of millions will be changed.
So this whole thing needs to be taken in peice meal, instaed of being shoved down our throats as real.

Well, the problem is prices are going to increase no matter what, global warming taxes or not. The food price increases you have been complaining about (and trust me, I don’t like them either) have as much to do with the price of oil as anything else. The price of oil is only going to increase, taxes or no taxes, as oil gets harder to find and extract from the earth. We’re set for higher prices, period and permanantly, unless we figure out the next energy source. In my view, global warming taxes might spur innovation into that new source and get us through the transition faster. With them, maybe we both might be alive to see a return of cheap energy, as opposed to our children reaping the benefit.

Thats bullshit.

Corn farmers are charging up the ass for there product now. And the rest of the farmers all want to grow corn now.
Inflation is a fact of life and I had figured it all into my calculations for the future.
What has happened lately is a 20% jump across the board.
What right does the goverment have to come in and screw up my whole familys future based on an arguement ?
You want me to believe you and have faith that this destruction is worth it.
Chicken little must be stopped untill he can show me proof.

Well, the price increases are do to both things, definitely, no question. But even if ethanol went away, we’d still be in for increasing food prices as the cost of transporting that food goes up. I’m with you in that a large push for ethanol is more of a subsidy to farmers than anything, and ethanol really shouldn’t be part of our long term plans. However, it is a very popular fuel. Seeing as the first primary in Iowa, all the candidates are trying to get in good with the farmers, and historically farm interests have played a huge role in politics. I don’t think that’s a good thing, but it is the way it is…

We never needed ethanol in the first place. It was the first stepping stone in the global warming hysteria.
It pollutes. Its bad for the soil { if crops dont get rotated}. And its incredibly expensive to produce.
Its bullshit snake oil.
And wont ever do a thing for mother earth