Let's start with .2 Celsius, going back to the UN report
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
Do you know what that actually is?
Fahrenheit to Celsius ratio = 180 : 100 = 1.8 : 1
This means that for every 1.8 degrees that temperature changes on the Fahrenheit scale, temperature will change 1 degree on the Celsius scale. Thus the ratio of Fº to Cº is 1.8 : 1
So .2 C = .36 F. That means the temperature will go up less then 3/4 of a degree over the next two decades. Scary, eh?
From the Center for Media and Democracy
Sam Chase from London Rising Tide described offsetting as "a smokescreen". Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Amsterdam-based Transnational Institute, recently released a report (pdf) critiquing offsets. "Offset companies give the idea that emissions are instantly 'neutralised' when in fact the supposed 'neutralisation' can take place over periods of up to a hundred years. Regular offsetting worsens the problem because the rate at which carbon emissions are 'neutralised' is far slower than the rate at which they are generated," warns Kevin Smith, the report's author.
Ah, so carbon offsetting is actually a shell game involving con artists. Nice to have that reaffirmed.
Ogre writes about how the Democratically run NC legislature is going to solve global warming. They are going to "talk about it." Next up, petitions, demonstrations, with the accompanying liberal crying jags.
The clown is correct. It is no joke. It is a huge business, making lots of people quite a chunk of change, along with prestige. But, did you know that it is a porn series? This is NOT SAFE FOR WORK. Ran across the box cover while searching global warming pictures at Yahoo. I really need to turn safe search on 
Meanwhile, back to reality, Iowahawk shows how you too can be carbon neutral (h/t Hot Air)
Do you have an interesting post? Well, go ahead and leave a trackback, with a reciprical link back to me. Others offering open trackbacks are over in the right sidebar, near bottom.
Sphere: Related Content
Are you kidding me? This is your argument (the rhetorical equivalent of “so what, who cares”)? Mock the evidence all you want but even if you don’t believe humans are the driving force behind global climate change it just makes good sense to reduce pollutants as well as our dependence on non-renewable fuel sources.
As for the argument that this is all just about making money, that could just as easily be said (and probably with more justification) for climate change skeptics being paid by big oil companies.
I will say, however, that your criticism of those who are arguing for policy change but make no changes in their own lives is valid.
W.T. Phone Home: Saw a 30-gallon SUV (Abrahams M-1 Tank size) at a gas station with GORE IN 2000 and KERRY IN 2004 bumper stickers (LEFT bumper), and with SAVE THE WHALES and I BRAKE FOR SQUIRRELS bumper stickers on the right side – next to the PRO-CHOICE and BAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT decals, and I continued to read my Ben Franklin’s Almanac and chuckle while Frau Vader filled up our 12-GALLON econo truck, the RED one with the BUSH IN 2000 and W IN 2004 bumper stickers – on the RIGHT rear bumper, next to the I DON’T BRAKE FOR LIBS decal! Have a conservative weekend!!
3/4 of a degree is not much of something to be concerned about, considering that’s about the extent of the warming we’ve endured for the last 100 years or more.
The environmentalists were saying in the 70’s that by the 1980’s, we’d all be frozen to death in the new ice age.
The said we were all going to starve to death because of a non-existent population explosion.
The fastest growing country, China, hasn’t kept up with the projected birth rates of the hysterical big government whackos because of very tight rules on birth rates.
Very little of the hysteria that is meant to increase government and increase legislation works, which is why we should be asking ourselves – are all these laws necessary? People are too ready to respond with ‘there ought to be a law!’
No, there shouldn’t be laws on common sense…but in the case of global warming, we’re going far beyond that. There is no scientific consensus!~ Climatologists do not agree on this; they DO, though, tend to agree that the computer models are missing the warming of the sun as a component, and the cooling of precipitation.
And without factoring in those types of things, why should we respond to misplaced hysteria?
Portugal supports the fight against Global Warming…