Who's asking for trillions to be spent?

Kill all humans

You mean doing things like making cars run 20 times cleaner?  Oh right, we've already done that.  It's probably what got this CO2 nonsense started, the hippies ran out of shit to bitch about when the automobile industry spanked the shit out of everyones expectations and damn near eliminated exhaust byproducts with unleaded gasoline, a chunk of charcoal, and an oxygen sensor.

Printing more money that doesn't exist is not a means to create new technology.  It's a means to create inflation.  If we'd stop sucking all the investment capital out of the markets for this absurdly massive level of deficit spending we've all decided to try over the last few years, technological progress would hum along just fine.

Assuming we are in a situation where the world knows 100% that humans are causing global warming? I'm not going to claim that I would know what to do. But if we were in that type of situation, then I think it would be a no brainer to spend some money to fix it. Where the money would go, IDK. Perhaps toward research of a sequestration technology. Technology of that type is really the only way to reverse the situation. The other solutions (that would cut emissions) could come naturally at that point.

Wow...the brush that you paint the auto-industry with sounds like it came from heaven...quite the contrary. The auto and oil industry have a tainted history when it comes to lead gasoline. You do know that the use of leaded fuel had to be stopped by the government, right? In fact, in 1992, release of GM documents showed how far GM went to try and bury its paper trail of leaded fuel research. The reason they used leaded fuel was to prevent engine knock. They expressed to the public that there was no other way, yet at the same time, they had patents taken out on other methods to do so. The use of leaded fuels had to be phased out starting in 1975 by the government. Even then, it was still used vastly in other parts of the world and then World Bank had to order it phased out in other countries too. So don't act like the auto-industry "spanked the shit out of everyone's expectations". In fact, it is laughable that you use the auto-industry as an example of a "beacon of environmental hope"....right, lol. There are a ton of other examples of the auto-industry's lack of responsibility and environmental awareness.

Yeah, that's a challenge. The problem is not that the global economy is centered around consumerism (although there is no evidence that it will lead to one's happyness and life fulfillment but it is another debate) about that our economy is about the GROWTH of this consumerism. Which lead to overharvesting Earth's non renewable ressources and damaging our environment.

This is the issue of this century. Even if you are a climate skeptical, i think you can agree about that (i mean, it is basic logic that economic growth lead to an increase of ressources consumption, isn't it ?).

Climate change is just one side of this issue. I think climate change exists but, to be honnest, i am not a climatologist, so can't say "It exist ! I am sure !". I will just say "i think it exists because i find it hard to believe that a theory that go AGAINST the way economy run (i mean, everyone here saw the heavy resistance climate change theory met in Copenhaguen when they were taking about binding measures) so i think that if it was just a Hoax, it would never has got enough momentum for kyoto and Copenhaguen events to take place."

But suppose climate change is really an Hoax or is really far less bad than what we fear. The issue of non renewable ressources would still remain, wouldn't it ?

And the common point between environment protection, sustainable devlopment and climate change is that they are all about REDUCING and CHANGING : reducing the use of non renewable ressources, changing the way we produce our energy, changing our way of life, reducing our waste. Everything that go against our economy which is about growth (i don't think i am saying nonsense here : economy is about incresaing wealth).

So, it is about change. And people don't like change.

But i am totally convinced it is needed. I would like to believe that we have infinite ressources on Earth, that there is enough wealth for everyone but the truth is that if everyone one earth live the same way than amercians, europeans and japanese do, the planet would be doomed.

So, even if we don't reduce greehouse gas production because of climate change, we would have to reduce the stress we are putting on earth because of the environment which would lead to greenhouse gas reduction. I think it is unavoidable but we can do it now the easy way or in 30 years the hard way. Just remember that, as a citizen of a rich country, you are free to chose about that issue. Some people are not.

You are correct.  I assigned what Michael Cook was saying to you since your response was a response to my response to him.  YOu have not made that assumption.

Again true, but then I never made the claim that just because I had not read it.  I have read some that do attach AGW to disappearing polar ice - but not in any scientific sense.  Again, I went to the source to find out what was happening to polar ice, and those tracking it, do not make such claims since it is a bad leader or lagger of the current CO2 levels.  Now should you find a scientific study associating the shrinking and growing of polar ice, that is more than "because I say so", I would be happy to reAd it.  As I said, not even Mann is making such a statement.

Wel, that proves you did not even read my response.  As I clearly stated:

I said BEFORE YOU RE-POINTED OUT that the next 2 links were to sea levels, a symptom of polar ice melting, but not a statement on it.  Perhaps you now want to re-read my response before going off on a totally irrelevant tangent?

I read your response, but maybe I misinterpreted it as you meant it to sound. Basically Michael Cook said the ice caps were melting, which you said they were not followed by 3 articles to backup that claim. Yes, I have read each one, do you understand why I say they don't disprove that the Antarctic is melting? The 3 articles were:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242398/Now-tests-ice-ISNT-melting-Sea-water-shelf-East-Antarctic-freezing.html

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/pacific_island_sea_levels_are_not_rising/

http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/presentations/briefing_paper_spslcmp_nov_2006.pdf

I then said that none of those articles actually prove anything about the ice caps not melting. They only go on to show that sea level has not been rising. I've already stated that what first needs to melt in the Antarctic before any sea level rise will result is the ice shelves. These are already floating on the ocean and will not cause any sea level rise. Because of this fact, the ice caps can continue to melt without having any impact on sea level. I am not sure how to make that clearer. Therefore, it is NOT a major method of checking how much the ice shelves have been melting (something that needs to happen before land-based ice makes any sort of impact). It is a major method of checking how much land-based ice has melted, but land-based ice hasn't really been affected yet, but that is what people are most concerned about in the future. The ice shelves can melt to their heart's content and the sea level will not rise much.

Secondly, even if sea-level rise picks up at a quicker pace, there is no way of using that information to determine where what are the main contributors to that sea level rise. The Antarctic could be melting really fast while other areas are growing. Or vice versa, the Antarctic could be very stable, but glaciers elsewhere could be melting increasingly that could contribute to sea-level rise. So sea-level rise is just a symptom, but is no a valid measurement method to determine how much ice loss is actually coming from any specific region on Earth (especially if that ice melt is from sea-based ice).

The other article (not related to sea level rise) talked about the East Antarctic being stable and in some places even growing. This again does not tell the tale of the continent as a whole (more on that later). It is only representative of that region and does not make up for the losses elsewhere.

So I am not sure what your debate was intended to be, but as I read it, none of your articles does anything to show that the Antarctic is not melting. If they do, then it would maybe help if you explained how they do. So I guess it comes down to the fact that you originally claimed that the Antarctic was not melting (in your response to Michael Cook) and how I said the opposite was true (irregardless to whatever the cause may be).

You should check out the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). Information on it can be found here:

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/GRACE/asdp.html

You can go to the publications tab to read about some of their findings.

They're able to measure exactly where on Earth water placement is going. It is not a predictive model, but it is a very precise measurement method. So they've been able to use it to determine where exactly water (and ice) is going on Earth. When looking in the Antarctic, they've shown that the continent as a whole has been losing ice and the rate has been picking up recently. They've seen how ice in the eastern region is fairly stable, but does not make up for the fact that the western region is losing ice more rapidly. These measurements are more accurate than looking at sea-levels because it can measure how much sea-based ice is melting.

Like I said, you can argue whether or not it is a natural trend or whether or not the current trends means anything. But, you can't argue that the current trend is the opposite to what it really is...and that is that Antarctica is losing ice overall.

Not "someone" but many "someones".  Check out their AGW articles (they like to run political pieces as none of them have an ounce of science in them).

I am not claiming that is indicative of the warmist movement, only that the movement has that type of "someones" in it.  And I told you where to go to find them.  It is not like I am trying to spread innuendo.  However, the comments can run to over a thousand replies, so it does take some reading - if you are up to it. Start with these and read for yourself.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=is-birth-control-the-answer-to-envi-2009-09-23

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-china-india-climate-accord&sc=DD_20091221

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-of-climate-negotiations&posted=1&posted=1

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=combating-climate-change-by-observi-2009-12-30

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-policy-analysis-goals-long-mid-term

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=negating-climategate

And telling you what has been stated is not alarmist, it is an ancient tradition not practiced today, called REPORTING.  Check out your funk and wagnals for a definition. And learn english.  You may be able to read, but your comprehension as demonstrated in your last 2 posts still sucks.

Liar!  Look, I gave you the links.  I said some had lots of comments.  If you dont want to read them, fine, but dont lie!  And dont lie about being "reasonable".  My attitude changed with your accusation quoted above.  Get off your high horse.  if you want to have a civil discourse, fine, we can.  But then don't go and insult me just because you don't like the message!

I can only surmise by your continued obtuseness on the previous issue, and then your antagonistic response to a statement I made (not even directed to you), that you have nothing more to offer and are just trying to bait me.  Fine, have your own jollies.  All you are going to get out of me is the descriptive - Liar.  Because I wont be reading your incessant bleating and pleading until you grow up and act mature. And quit the bald faced lies!  I will post the quotes if someone else asks me to, but since they are not linkable, you have to scroll through every damn one of them.

You would fit the classic definition of a "naysayer".  If we have to improve on the combusion process so it's another 20 times cleaner, than that's what we have to do.  Grit your teeth and deal with it.  Technology solves some problems, and creates some others in its place...and hopefully, somewhere along the line, the new problems are good problems to have and we are moving forward.  That's the way technology has always been.  Heck, by your logic...why even make cars at all?  Obviously the root cause is that cars are polluting the atmosphere.  Let's just pull that weed at the root:  from now on, everyone walks.  Or, we could just all give up, pretend there's no problem, roll over, and die.  What warming?  The glaciers aren't melting!  Everything's wonderful!

And yes...obviously, if you print money with no real value behind it, that causes inflation.  What do you think it is I just said?  If we can print money and use it to create fat CEO's and dead Iraqis, then we can use it to actually do something useful.

Having a group of advocates of radical depopulation still does not jive with the statement "Kill ALL humans" which is what my reply was to. Yes, our overpopulation is a source for a lot of our problems of today. Yes, there are extremists out there that feel some people should be killed off to fix that problem. But, killing ALL humans is hardly a solution that you could find any group of people backing and feel that they are inline with any public movement such that you could include them in the same category.

What was the point of it? Exactly, which is what I was getting at. There is no point to such claims and do nothing toward the debate of global warming.

Anyway...back to the topic of Antarctic ice loss...

Actually there were 2 points.  neither of which prove or disprove AGW.

1: The agenda of some AGW proponents is not altruistic as they belong to the kook fringe that believe that man is outside the eco system and therefore should be erradicated (the most looney of the bunch).

2: Those that have no conception of what they are signing on to will go to bed with anyone to further their religion, ignoring the fact that once the fox is on the other side of the river, the gingerbread man was inside of him.