It's all just the way the earth is it goes in cycles.

and relieving yourself in a pool doesn't change it either... its all just water.

Let me remind everyone that the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor; CO2 plays a negligible role (less than 1% I think). The whole premise of global warming is that "unnaturally" increased levels of CO2 result in SLIGHTLY higher temperatures, which increase the worlds ocean temperatures, which result in more evaporated water vapor which leads to global warming.

This whole theory is a farce. We KNOW that global temperatures have been much higher in the past than now (evidence the colonization of greenland and then the later retreat at the little ice age). And yet, there never was a runaway greenhouse effect then, why would there be now?

Also, its interesting to point out that it is NOT a known fact that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is even attributable to human activity (although it seems likely). The more likely contributor is, you guessed it, the oceans which cover the majority of the surface area. As surface oceans increase in temperature, more dissolved CO2 off-gases into the atmosphere. Contrary to popular opinion, global warming seems to be caused by the sun. The suns output has been increasing over the last several hundred years which brought an end to the "little ice age."

By the way, government researchers are not unbiased. The government wants (knowningly or not) evidence for global warming, they are providing the grants, so amazingly the research supports that conclusion. We had the same biasing of research data in support of eugenics practices (some of which were actually carried out in the United States) before Hitler came to power and suddently eugenics became a bad word and all the past government sponsored research was swept under the rug.

Yes C02 is absorbed by plants, but only at a set rate based on the amount of plants in an area. If CO2 and other emissions increase in an area it does not mean more CO2 gets absorbed. That would require more plants to absorb it. Not all plants are created equal in absorbing CO2.

I enjoy articles that are opinions and viewpoints. The government has paid scientists for years to study and document the climate. Until recently their compiled reports have not been widely circulated.

For 10 years you have heard they take ice core samples from the arctic/anarctic. They determine which layer of ice is what span of years and do a test to determine atmospheric composition. They find evidence of volcanic dust and can even trace it to which volcanoes erupted by finding the correct geologic layer of rock it matches.

This means they have a fairly accurate picture of what the climate has been like throughout history. And they have the same information for current human activity. Specifically the last 100 years, since industrialization there has been a dramatic increase around 33% more CO2 emissions compared to the last 10,000 years. a graph is here http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr...

Temperature like weather is not constant. Cold weather and specifically snow remove particulates from the air and deposit them on the ground or water. Recently they observed the pollution of the ocean has increased because it has absorbed more of these emissions than previously thought, including CO2. Meaning the ocean has become more acidic due to absorbing our emissions. Not converting them absorbing them, like a rancid pool of standing water. Water will absorb something like 7% of CO2 that its exposed to, but that changes dramatically when you apply boyle's law and the oceans are deep.

If you want the climate data look at a site that has bothered to compile it from the years of paperwork generated by scientist working from grants interested in the truth not what is popular with their employer. Instead of using the words of a single writer on a website clearly supported by many businesses.

http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm

His comments show that he is an ineffective leader of this state. All options should be considered for energy use. I have grown weary of hearing that we need to develop alternative enery. I agree that we need renewable forms of energy, but until that energy is cost effective and abundant we still need coal, oil , and gas. In addition, when we develop the next generation of energy sources, will people cry and whine when they make "windfall profits" because of demand?

Don't plants and trees need CO2 to live? Don't animals and humans exhale CO2 aren't there billions of humans on this planet that every day breath and exhale CO2? http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article...

Thank you Gov....If people do not move away from fossil fuels now, the future for our children and generations to come will suffer for our greediness. My Alliant bill gives me the option to go green for just about $3.00 more a month. How many of you whiners have signed up?

It seems every community I drive through has a dam. If all the dams were harnessed for Hydro Electic power as a supplemental clean energy resource, the savings would add up. Makes more sense to me than T Boone Pickens selling us his solar and wind power from Texas. Although I think coal, wind and solar can work together.

Yes the water turns blue, just like the CO2 doesn't go away. The ability to filter CO2 out of the environment stays relatively constant for a geographical area. Barring major changes such as a few hundred/thousand acres being razed for development. So any increased emissions result in a greenhouse effect.

More kids = more cars = more emissions

Hydroelectric power has stopped for one reason, everything that can effectively be dammed has been dammed. Short of creating areas like lake delton, which is not a cost effective alternative to building a coal plant. The government has made it abundantly clear they are willing to take the easy way out to get anything they want.

Doyle is a dope. It is one thing to move away from coal when you have something to move too. His stance at this point is just "no". What is the plan Doyle? What is the alternative that will work and not cost, us the tax payers, more money?

With the new scrubber technology coal plants are cheap and effecient energy. We're alot clearer than China.
Ever wonder why no one wants to talk about hydro electric power?

I sense a campaign contribution for Governor "Diamond Jim" Doyle spontaneously occuring with a totally unrelated no-bid contract to provide the State of Wisconsin with mountain of coal.

Why not just fit the plants with exhaust scrubbers? I would rather we burned coal since the US is pretty much the Saudi Arabia of coal. So, it is cheap.

"Gov. Jim Doyle says the state should lead by example and move away from using coal at state-owned power plants in Madison."

If the power plant is state-owned, it's probably as efficient as the DMV. I'm for any type of power plant, coal or otherwise, as long as it's not state-owned. They'll be much more efficient.

Don't you know that the water turns blue if you do that?

WOW. I believe relieving yourself in a public pool does nothing to change the water since there is chlorine in it. Assuming there is no impact from CO2 is roughly equivalent to believing that.

25 years ago children were taught what greenhouse gasses were. Most were even given demonstrations showing the sealed environments containing the air outside and air with more greenhouse gases in it, sealed with thermometers in them. What you think it showed 25 years ago?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: CO2 is not a pollutant. Thanks to political agendas based on bad science, we're going to ignore one of the greatest resources we have in this country? We're shooting ourselves in the foot. If you want to encourage alternative sources that are priced comparable to coal, that's fine, but don't just flat-out say no new coal plants. We need more coal and nuclear plants to replace aging baseload plants.

There’s nothing wrong with limiting greenhouse gases, but there is a price to pay. Coal is (relatively) cheap and plentiful in the U.S. The alternatives cost more. Since we’re in a state with low taxes and large budget surpluses, there should be no problem moving away from coal. Oh wait, we’re in Wisconsin. Switching from coal is a *bad* idea.
.
To reduce greenhouse gases, take away the Governor’s limo, downsize his house to a one bedroom ranch, eliminate 90% of Senate and House staffers and shutter most of the State Capitol, and cut 90% from every elected official’s travel budget. That will more than make up for the coal, gare-un-tee! Now, if there was just a way to turn all their hot air into electricity . . .

Doyle and many other politicians who want to tax or limit greenhouse gas emissions have a belief not based in facts but more in left wing political agenda.
Doyle had this report done to give his idea some sort of credibility and placate the environmental wackos of his party.

Here's a link to the study.
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/docview.asp?d...