Some of what you wrote is correct.
The sun's output really does vary over time.
however, ever since Sputnik, the scientists have been able to measure this without the Earth's atmosphere getting in the way.
There have found that the solar output is actually a little bit down over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, we have more and more record-breaking years in terms of Earth's high surface temperature.
Even while solar output is down.
Do you have an explanation for that?

human beings only represent  minority of cow production.

That is as good of an explanation as I am likely to get....

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

human beings only represent  minority of cow production.

That is as good of an explanation as I am likely to get....

In all seriousness, it doesn't take a nobel laureate to conclude that, directly or indirectly, humans and their endeavors are the main factor responsible for this increase in the earth's surface temperature. I would be remiss if i did not thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

That is as good of an explanation as I am likely to get....

In all seriousness, it doesn't take a nobel laureate to conclude that, directly or indirectly, humans and their endeavors are the main factor responsible for this increase in the earth's surface temperature. I would be remiss if i did not thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

You're gonna pull a muscle patting yourself on the back like that.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In all seriousness, it doesn't take a nobel laureate to conclude that, directly or indirectly, humans and their endeavors are the main factor responsible for this increase in the earth's surface temperature. I would be remiss if i did not thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

You're gonna pull a muscle patting yourself on the back like that.

Or make an arbitrary phone call...

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Fun facts:

Over 95% of the greenhouse affect comes from water vapor.  Co2 isn't nearly the most potent Nd human beings only represent  minority of cow production...

There isn't a historical causal relationship between co2 levels and surface temperatures.  In fact according to the ice cores the OPPOSITE is true.  

There have been times in the Earths history when there were no or very little ice caps.  

The giant fusion engine that provides 99.999999999999999999999999 of the energy on the planet has power cycles.

Last but not least the earth has been warming and cooling for all of its 4.1 billion years.  Glacial periods, ice ages, tropical climates etc.

Some of what you wrote is correct.
The sun's output really does vary over time.
however, ever since Sputnik, the scientists have been able to measure this without the Earth's atmosphere getting in the way.
There have found that the solar output is actually a little bit down over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, we have more and more record-breaking years in terms of Earth's high surface temperature.
Even while solar output is down.
Do you have an explanation for that?

Please refer back to point 2

---

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

---

Some of what you wrote is correct.
The sun's output really does vary over time.
however, ever since Sputnik, the scientists have been able to measure this without the Earth's atmosphere getting in the way.
There have found that the solar output is actually a little bit down over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, we have more and more record-breaking years in terms of Earth's high surface temperature.
Even while solar output is down.
Do you have an explanation for that?

Please refer back to point 2

I said that some of what you wrote is true.
Your point two was false.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

Because the doomsayers are using the science for political gain, that's why. Because they've been saying this is The End for 50 years and its not. Because they cant even agree exactly what the change is, but it's really The End, swearsies. Because The End can only be averted by giving them money, power, and control. Because non-scientists are just as much a part of the doomsayers group as the non-doomsayers group and a hell of a lot more hypocritical about it. Because the scientific evidence has been shown to be flawed, misinterpreted, wrong, and in many cases down right manufactured. Because the Consensus isnt. Because we were lied to about too much already for us to believe the This Time it's really true, the Wolf really is eating the Sheep! Because the core of the Green Movement is made up of Anti-Capitalists who desire an end to our way of life and are using this charade to gain the power to do so. But other than that let's destroy the wealthiest society ever created, that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other, while totalitarian societies that do more damage to the environment are given a pass to do whatever they want, while America is at the same time making more progress on these initiatives than anyone else but that just isnt good enough, because it never ever is while there's a Crusade to fight and money to be made for those that promote it. Nah, take that [BLEEP] and go bug China and India, America needs to quit being the world's patsies.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

Because the doomsayers are using the science for political gain, that's why. Because they've been saying this is The End for 50 years and its not. Because they cant even agree exactly what the change is, but it's really The End, swearsies. Because The End can only be averted by giving them money, power, and control. Because non-scientists are just as much a part of the doomsayers group as the non-doomsayers group and a hell of a lot more hypocritical about it. Because the scientific evidence has been shown to be flawed, misinterpreted, wrong, and in many cases down right manufactured. Because the Consensus isnt. Because we were lied to about too much already for us to believe the This Time it's really true, the Wolf really is eating the Sheep! Because the core of the Green Movement is made up of Anti-Capitalists who desire an end to our way of life and are using this charade to gain the power to do so. But other than that let's destroy the wealthiest society ever created, that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other, while totalitarian societies that do more damage to the environment are given a pass to do whatever they want, while America is at the same time making more progress on these initiatives than anyone else but that just isnt good enough, because it never ever is while there's a Crusade to fight and money to be made for those that promote it. Nah, take that [BLEEP] and go bug China and India, America needs to quit being the world's patsies.

There are socialists and anarchists who want to destroy our way of life and destroy the wealthiest society ever created.
Some of them are using climate change to push their agenda.
Just like they use homeless people to push their agenda.
Just like they use dilapidated towns with closed down factories and Superfund sites to push their agenda.
But none of these things stop being factual just because bad people want to discuss them.  
There are dilapidated ghettoes.  There are homeless people.  And there is climate change.

Our society will still work fundamentally the same way if we reduce income and payroll taxes and replace them with a carbon tax.  Note that the true socialists out there are more likely to advocate for state takeover of energy companies as their solution.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Please refer back to point 2

I said that some of what you wrote is true.
Your point two was false.

DENIER!!!

generally the ice core samples demonstrate temperature increases that predate cos increases.

---

I said that some of what you wrote is true.
Your point two was false.

DENIER!!!

generally the ice core samples demonstrate temperature increases that predate cos increases.

Humans are not able to analyze ice cores down to the level of resolution required to differentiate which peak (co2 or temperature) comes first. We can only see that the peaks tend to coincide. There is a definite correlation. Even though we know that correlation is not causation, the ice core is not the only piece of evidence to consider.
We can study the behavior of various mixtures of gases in bottles, and see how much solar radiation they absorb.
Once we know that CO2 absorbs radiation more than nitrogen and oxygen, we see what the most likely direction for causation is.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Because the doomsayers are using the science for political gain, that's why. Because they've been saying this is The End for 50 years and its not. Because they cant even agree exactly what the change is, but it's really The End, swearsies. Because The End can only be averted by giving them money, power, and control. Because non-scientists are just as much a part of the doomsayers group as the non-doomsayers group and a hell of a lot more hypocritical about it. Because the scientific evidence has been shown to be flawed, misinterpreted, wrong, and in many cases down right manufactured. Because the Consensus isnt. Because we were lied to about too much already for us to believe the This Time it's really true, the Wolf really is eating the Sheep! Because the core of the Green Movement is made up of Anti-Capitalists who desire an end to our way of life and are using this charade to gain the power to do so. But other than that let's destroy the wealthiest society ever created, that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other, while totalitarian societies that do more damage to the environment are given a pass to do whatever they want, while America is at the same time making more progress on these initiatives than anyone else but that just isnt good enough, because it never ever is while there's a Crusade to fight and money to be made for those that promote it. Nah, take that [BLEEP] and go bug China and India, America needs to quit being the world's patsies.

There are socialists and anarchists who want to destroy our way of life and destroy the wealthiest society ever created.
Some of them are using climate change to push their agenda.
Just like they use homeless people to push their agenda.
Just like they use dilapidated towns with closed down factories and Superfund sites to push their agenda.
But none of these things stop being factual just because bad people want to discuss them.  
There are dilapidated ghettoes.  There are homeless people.  And there is climate change.

Our society will still work fundamentally the same way if we reduce income and payroll taxes and replace them with a carbon tax.  Note that the true socialists out there are more likely to advocate for state takeover of energy companies as their solution.

What, in your opinion, are the negative implications of a Carbon Tax?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

Because the doomsayers are using the science for political gain, that's why. Because they've been saying this is The End for 50 years and its not. Because they cant even agree exactly what the change is, but it's really The End, swearsies. Because The End can only be averted by giving them money, power, and control. Because non-scientists are just as much a part of the doomsayers group as the non-doomsayers group and a hell of a lot more hypocritical about it. Because the scientific evidence has been shown to be flawed, misinterpreted, wrong, and in many cases down right manufactured. Because the Consensus isnt. Because we were lied to about too much already for us to believe the This Time it's really true, the Wolf really is eating the Sheep! Because the core of the Green Movement is made up of Anti-Capitalists who desire an end to our way of life and are using this charade to gain the power to do so. But other than that let's destroy the wealthiest society ever created, that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other, while totalitarian societies that do more damage to the environment are given a pass to do whatever they want, while America is at the same time making more progress on these initiatives than anyone else but that just isnt good enough, because it never ever is while there's a Crusade to fight and money to be made for those that promote it. Nah, take that [BLEEP] and go bug China and India, America needs to quit being the world's patsies.

Regarding the part in bold.  That is spot on for those that push the global warming climate change falsehood.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There are socialists and anarchists who want to destroy our way of life and destroy the wealthiest society ever created.
Some of them are using climate change to push their agenda.
Just like they use homeless people to push their agenda.
Just like they use dilapidated towns with closed down factories and Superfund sites to push their agenda.
But none of these things stop being factual just because bad people want to discuss them.  
There are dilapidated ghettoes.  There are homeless people.  And there is climate change.

Our society will still work fundamentally the same way if we reduce income and payroll taxes and replace them with a carbon tax.  Note that the true socialists out there are more likely to advocate for state takeover of energy companies as their solution.

What, in your opinion, are the negative implications of a Carbon Tax?

The main down side is that it is not predictable.
We know that a carbon tax will cause people to use less fossil fuel, but how much less?

The carbon tax could be more successful than predicted in getting people to switch away from fossil fuel. but in that case it will be less successful than predicted at bringing revenue into the government.

So it'll have to be adjusted every 5 years or so. 

Some environmentalist activists want to be able to predict and budget how much carbon dioxide we will emit. a cap and trade scheme sort of allows you to do that, but a carbon tax does not. 

another downside worth mentioning is that part of any carbon tax is a tariff on countries that do not have their own carbon tax. those countries will deploy all sorts of lobbyist to try to get their tariff reduced.  Our government will try to figure out what their tariff should be based on what their power mix is, and they will try to deceive us about their power mix.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The future is almost here. 

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

My other argument. For those so concerned and championing the green thumb on here. Few questions.

1. How much water do you use a day?
2. Do you use a dishwasher?
3. Do you use a washer?
4. Do you drive a gasoline based vehicle?
5. Do you use solar or standard energy?
6. Do you unplug all of your electronics?
7. How energy efficient is your home?
8. How often do you fly yearly?


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I think you have to separate the two questions:  

1) Is it real?

2) What are you willing to do about it?  

I think it's real, for sure.  But I'm not sure what I'm willing to do about it.  I don't endorse ridiculous overreactions like the "Green New Deal."

It's not real....I don't know how old you are....but seriously think about everything they have thrown out over the years.... I mean dating back decades.... How much has come true.... I would say probably none of it....

---

I think you have to separate the two questions:  

1) Is it real?

2) What are you willing to do about it?  

I think it's real, for sure.  But I'm not sure what I'm willing to do about it.  I don't endorse ridiculous overreactions like the "Green New Deal."

It's not real....I don't know how old you are....but seriously think about everything they have thrown out over the years.... I mean dating back decades.... How much has come true.... I would say probably none of it....

We were supposed to be Seaworld by now.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The interesting thing about it is the fact that if Trump woke up tomorrow morning and tweeted Climate Change is Real, you'd have his 35% Base panting like dogs supporting his statement.

Wrong again!!

---

I don't disagree that Florida will someday be underwater. It's extremely plausible. I don't know if it'll be 50 years from now or 5,000 years from now. But it can certainly happen. But a lot of the data we were spoon fed as kids simply hasn't added up. I still think people on both sides of the argument should reach mutual levels of agreement here though.

Cleaner energy is ultimately better for the planet. It's a pain in the [BLEEP] to pull oil out of the Earth. Fracking is also an issue. We've seen how terrible it can be in certain cities here. I also look at it as a potential economic boon someday for our country. How many great cities have fallen apart thanks to key industries going underwater financially?

It's just good for business. Even Shell or other Oil companies are trying to advertise this fact to the public. It's a step in the right direction. The data DOES need to add up though. Too much division in that field and it causes these very rifts we're having here alone in this thread. It's a bit of a bummer.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

Because it's all political... Right down to the very bottom of it.... To the point where scientist are denied funding if they don't agree with the so-called global warming....explain to me why they change the name from global warming to climate change in the first place.... It's because there was actually no warming between the years of 1999 To 2016... Absolutely no rise in temperature....

---