>>>><snip> bad weather in December does not disprove global warming. IMO this response against virtual unanimity among serious scientists is one of the great economic whitewashings of our time.
>>>>
>>>>But review of empirically directived weather data does prove Global cooling, removal of all weather stations that don't meet the Warming Model doesn't prove it either, nor does adding fudge factors to the models prove it either.
>>>>
>>>>Wake up Mike, you are being misled.
>>>>
>>>>I am all for cleaning up the planet, but Carbon isn't the culprit.
>>>
>>>This is a combination of the old Malthusians raising their heads (and foot) again, with pointing the accusing finger at the population, and not at all at corporations. We don't hear ozone holes mentioned anymore, nor acid rains. The huge tankers bringing in stuff from China, spewing enormous amounts of worst pollutants (just the few largest ones, which burn the dirtiest diesel possible, produce more pollutants than whole cities) are mentioned once a year, as a footnote. Military aircraft are flying daily, serving no real purpose but to boost the sales of military aircraft, but they aren't mentioned as pollutants, even when they spray aluminium/barium nanoparticles. Brazil keeps losing jungles daily to megacorporations growing GMO soy and corn - corn which is not used to feed the world, but to fuel the SUVs.
>>>
>>>But that's not marked as cause of pollution. Nope, it's cows, humans and sheep. You don't get much mention of any of the above, but you can hear a lot about a cost of a single baby in carbon footprint. And they keep saying CO2 is somehow bad, while pumping that same CO2 into their glasshouses to boost the growth of the plants.
>>>
>>>Carbon trading is the best market gimmick after papal indulgences. Selling imaginary things, indeed. Racket, no less.
>>
>>The jury is still out on carbon's influence. I do intend to do some open minded research, as stated yesterday to John Baird. If I decide I am wrong or have been misled, I'll admit it.
>>
>>My accusing finger is not aimed at consumers. More of a mix, I suppose. Sure, we don't need to be driving Hummers, low mileage monster pickup trucks, and other ridiculous vehicles, But although not as extreme as you, lol, I don't trust corporations much, either. With some exceptions they are ruled by profit, not employees or, god knows, the future of the planet. If the economic events of the past few years have not shown us that the "invisible hand" espoused by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, among others, is a false premise, I don't know what would. They said there is some mysterious force that makes private enterprise the answer to all questions and government oversight unnecessary. Yeah, right.
>
>Your residential or city dweller certainly doesn't need those vehicles, however, if you live on a ranch and have to carry fencing or other equipment around, you may very well need one (not the hummer of course :o)


We have to have our 4WD Dakota out here to carry firewood/handle snow/ice/etc.

When we don't need it (which is almost always) my wife and I drive Prius's.