Comments on: Roxanne Decyk: ‘More than governments needed to solve climate change’

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:23:48 +0000

Your statement about it taking more than goverment to solve this issue is so true. I mean, we ourselves as citizens can, and should change our habits and that will have the greatest impact.

By: Doug in Colorado

Doug in Colorado — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:12:37 +0000

At one point I was able to get the former owner of this site (Ms. Byrd) to admit that she was an advocate of the Global Warming agenda regardless of the facts…for whatever reason she has largely witdrawn from the day to day activities of the site, but the legacy lives on…
Contrary to the hard fact that the key findings of the IPCC report are erroneous and the key players discredited, the Greek Chorus here continues to sing of Carbon and the Man…
If there were any such thing as man-made (as opposed to Mann-made) global warming, all the key data has been dumped, the methodology and the key players entirely discredited…and yet the song goes on.
Come on, Earth and Sky…you editors, pretending to be a clear voice for science when you are actually a clear voice for political and economic conquest of the sovereign nations on this planet under the guise of “Obey me or there will be Cataclysm!”

This site is anti-science, anti-capitalism, anti-
american, and anti-freemarket…it is pro one-world-government, planned economy, and pro misery.

I’m hoisting the BS flag.

By: Steven Earl Salmony

Steven Earl Salmony — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:30:54 +0000

The family of humanity is presented with a colossal problem, second in magnitude only to climate change as a threat to human wellbeing and environmental health. Currently, corporate entities are perversely regarded under law as having individual rights like those that citizens of a country possess. A patina of corporate ‘citizenship’ masks many kinds of illegitimate, immoral and fraudulent activities that are promulgated by arrogant, dishonest and greedy individuals within huge international financial and production enterprises. These corporate entities are so gigantic that no nation-state on Earth can any longer reasonably and sensibly contain them.

Which major corporation, multinational conglomerate or industry “owns” your country’s governance mechanisms…democratic principles and practices notwithstanding?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:22:03 +0000

That is because anyone on the cfr is part of this scam (treason against the us people

By: p garcia

p garcia — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:17 +0000

Clearly Roxanne Decyk has’nt heard of those hacked emails of the climate Research Lab those that athe regular media refuses to accept and report.

By: Benjamin Napier

Benjamin Napier — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:23:15 +0000

Has anyone noticed that one of the leading “research” universities that provided the “data” to push the global warming hype has just gotten caught lying? Has anyone noticed the earth is cooling? Has anyone noticed that the exalted algore has placed himself in an enterprise that will make him filthy richer as a result of the carbon cap and trade scam? Has anyone noticed that “climate change” has replaced “global warming”? Carbon capture will require the building of 100% more power plants and will use 100% more energy than we have and use now. To produce the same amount of net power. Don’t beleive me? Check Power Magazine. The reality is that all of this “climate alarmism” is just a way to frighten the people of the United States to bow to global rule and to accept huge new taxes and a lower standard of living. Just to support a ruling global elite. The science is pretty good. CO2 is not warming the earth. THe sky is not falling. Taxes are going up.

By: Hank

Hank — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:20:32 +0000

I continue to be baffled by the ongoing push to trade in carbon through forced policy. While I understand the whole trading concept and the billions of dollars to be made, I still don’t see where it solves anything. In the end, industry is just paying to pollute and brokers get rich. All of the studies I’ve seen that attempt to model an outcome to carbon trading conclude it would have little to no impact on climate change and would, in our current state of technology have a very decided impact on economies as economic growth can not yet be decoupled from the trading models. Unless China, India, and Russia get on board with de-industrialization (fat chance), then any trading scheme pushes jobs and economic growth their way to the detriment of participating countries – 2nd and 3rd world countries being hit the worst.

As a research scientist and the owner of an environmentally responsible technologies company that markets my science, I have clear understanding of how carbon trading will affect my little company. It will tie up financial resources that could be used to further fund research and hire employees. All of this talk of balance is pure rubbish at my scale. My business already has a “balance” sheet that weighs production against profitability. In the present economy, that balance is very tight and unforgiving. Do you propose to add additional expenses (yes you do) to that balance and conclude you’ve somehow helped me when you’ve contributed nothing to my productivity? Of course you could give me free allocations but who pays for them – the small business next door?

If I were a huge corporation like Shell then I can see where carbon trading could be profitable but at my scale (20 employees), there is no financial model that suggests there is any positive outcome. The whole carbon trading concept is too top ended. In the end, it creates no wealth while it siphons off the operating capital of smaller business to fund its huge political / financial engine. I’m glad Shell sees themselves as a capable player. Most of us smaller guys aren’t.