Here is a paper the alarmists probably don't want you to know about: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/full
Because using CO2 emissions as a mechanism to force behavior changes is more inclusive to human activities than just poor combustion and the resulting carbon black? CO2 emission regulations can get down into the human existence right down to breathing, whereas carbon black makes more of a case for more thorough combustion, as opposed to creating a market for CO2 to make money off of, at a far greater expense to normal folks than just tuning up their combustion emissions. If the climate folks hadn't been so vocal about their plans and intent back in the 70's and 80's it would be far easier to dismiss some of these long term ideas, but they certainly weren't shy about what they thought about all the dumb folks overpopulating the world.
I don't have any problem with the word. Climate change is, in fact, alarming. I read the abstract and I didn't see anything in there that defies the consensus surrounding AGW. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what you saw that does.
You're way, way, way off base. When we talk about a carbon tax (to take one example) we're talking about taxing fossil carbon, which is the problem. Biospheric carbon is drawn out of the atmosphere, and when it returns back to the atmosphere the net effect is neutral. It's fossil carbon that's the problem, not breathing. Of course it would take a scientist trained up to the grade-school level to understand that, which sort of leaves out the graduates of Denierstan U.
When one considers "black carbon" one should think about the fact that "crap" in the air diffuses and absorbs sunlight. This would make the earth slightly cooler and when the atmosphere is "cleaned up" it would warm more quickly. That does not take into account the fact that "black" snow would melt quicker. So how do we tell how much energy is being absorbed by junk in the air? Compare evaporation experiments from the past with results obtained now. Water will evaporate slower in "dirty" air. I have brought this subject up before. All it takes is some thought.
Absolutely! Because it involvesÂ…CHANGE!! People hate change, unless they benefit it from it, as an example. The very EXISTENCE of Canada for example, a WONDERFUL side effect of climate warming. Good thing that the paleo-North Americans standing outside of Manhattan, wondering when those glacial sheets would go away so they could move north and become the natives that had the honor of having Pamela Lee Anderson born in their country. A warming effect that might be alarming to some I imagine. But a wonderful side effect to others!
Maybe that what YOU are trying to sell. That isn't what the original anti-human population folks were selling when they got together in the 70's and 80's, and decided that they needed science to say what they wanted it to say to sell a DIFFERENT agenda. And that agenda is far better served with an anti-CO2 angle than it is a "please burn things more thoroughly" angle. Carbon trading is a means to create a market, and allow folks like Al Gore to get in on the ground floor. First he sells an idea, becomes famous for it, gets in on the ground floor, lobbies for the rule changes to put his consortium on top in the money making game, and kick back and let the utilities then spread the cost across all their customers that Al might live in his mansion in style. We should all be so lucky as to rig this kind of a scheme, right? Actually, you are incorrect. The original idea was to use science to justify the anti-population agenda, so ultimately…yes…it is about breathing. You are. And they didn;'t want you to. To high a chance that you'd be the wrong color, or want to have the lifestyle of an American, or heaven forbid come from Africa or some distasteful place. 15 years as a publishing scientist, can't say I ever even heard of Denierstan U. Is that an Ivy school?
