Microsoft Implements Cap & Trade to Cut CO2

Michael you seem to predominantly rely on the fallacious argument that other sources produce larger amounts then human release therefore the small extra couldn’t possibly have any substantive effect. What the argument misses is the homeostatic cycle where those organic systems constantly release AND reabsorb CO2, they in fact absorb more CO2 then the natural release each year which is why the ocean is becoming more acidic and why the atmospheric CO2 is not rising by the full amount released through anthropogenic activity. The small added effect of burning millions of years worth of fossilised carbon every year IS enough to tip the balance of the system.
There is a perfect analogy in my field of expertise, medicine. Potassium is an important salt in the body, most of it is found in the fluid inside the cells of the body but there is a constant state of flux to keep appropriate amounts inside and outside the cells necessary to maintain vital cell functions including our heartbeat (this is very similar to the flux of CO2 between organic systems and the atmosphere). The total amount of potassium in the body is ~3,500mEq. Yet if I inject 35 mEq of potassium it would be universally fatal, this because the small added amount tips the balance of the system which normally regulates the flux of potassium around the body.

So if a 1% change in a chemical substance is enough to kill a person why then would a 3% change in CO2 not be capable of a similarly catastrophic effect on a much larger organic system?

I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html. The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended, to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of their monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole discipline, if not all, of science into disrepute in the process. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.
That’s not to belittle the effort by thousands of scientists fighting for the truth in climate research, but I dismay over the practical effect of diverting all this brain power in a direction not at all relevant to the IPCC’s actual and declared political and financial intentions – or more importantly: away from the actual work that needs doing.
All IMHO, of course. My musings for what they may be worth on my various blogsite entries, and at http://www.lmhdesign.co.uk/sustainability.php and the Planet page on that website.

The shills in the US Congress would do better in the long run to start taking their lead from initiatives like this instead of the Koch bros.