You can take a stab at providing a cogent explanation for why the US should take up this Cap and Trade burden when the largest GHG emitters do not?
You keep hitting on this, but nobody has given their stance one way or another. This is an attempt to discuss the FACT that man is creating global climate change. We aren't even talking about solutions at this point.
The debate could switch to how much of an effect we have vs nature, what kind of effects will be long lasting, or if those changes are actually good. But there really is no debate if humans are influencing climate change. Sure, there are still people who say it is not fact, but there are people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, people who believe in voodoo, and people people who believe in unicorns. And that's how this will be viewed shortly, that deniers believe in something akin to unicorns. Saying the opposite doesn't make it so.
Well ok, fill us in on the facts of when man started having his disastrous impact relative to this chart of Sea Level Rise over the last 20 thousand years. The Cap n Trade is the only international fix so far. It failed in Congress, not even one Democrat voted to do it. But it does remains as Obam's fix, even without Congress. He is proceeding by executive action. Who in the hell is dumb enough not to say man didn't cause this with this fix in view?
I don't think it's a coincidence, but it is a huge leap that 300 to 400 PPM is causal. I've already shown that warming correlates to our national debt and to world population. I don't know if they're causal, either, but equally compelling. The link is weak. What the ice core data shows is that CO2 increases after temperature rises, and we've had significant warming for ~20,000 years, long before the industrial revolution. That's why I keep asking where the glaciers that covered the Great Lakes went.
Stop it. There are highly skilled and qualified scientists who aren't any of that nonsense, but who admit AGW is a scam.
Look at the VERTICAL red line at the very far right and then point to where that's happened elsewhere on the graph. It's not just that the CO2 concentration has risen by 80 ppm, it's that it has done so in a century. Compare that to the end of the past ice ages which took around 5,000 years to rise 80 ppm. The reason is that the increase isn't natural, it's man-made.
Look at the blue line, it's not any higher than many times in the past. Temperature rises before CO2 does, so it's not tied to CO2. I mean, if you graph # of toilets, you'll have a big spike, too (that went from 0 to a whole lot of 'em since the industrial revolution). They don't cause temperature to rise either.
You want to debate policy? Fine. I don't particularly like cap and trade. Better solutions must exist. But if you deny the problem you can't very well find a solution. I just would like the deniers to explain why 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that the planet is warming, human activity is a major cause, and the rate is increasing. Disagreements over some details, which always happens in science, but not the basic fact. Nothing to do with how deep the San Francisco Bay was 7000 years ago. Dragging in irrelevancies does not cover up ignorance. Facts: Human activity is a major cause of climate change in the past 200 years, with rapidly increasing effects. Evolution of species did happen. The Nazis did kill approximately 6 million Jews (and others). HIV is the causative agent of AIDS. People (well, male people) did walk on the moon. There is a major association between tobacco use and early death. No amount of billionaire money can change facts. Facts don't give a damn if you believe them or not. Galileo forced to renounce his planetary model did not cause the sun to travel around the earth.
so co2 levels are the highest they have been in 400,000 years (at least)? and rising faster than they have in 400,000 years (at least)?
Where do you get that 97% figure? It's bogus. And why are these shamen more believable than scientists with similar disciplines, economists, and statisticians? A good read: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Wow, Denny... You actually think that? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning as its concentration increases, the amount of heat it traps increases and the temperature increases. You don't see the blue line at the very end because the time scale is too large. The temp will continue to increase as the CO2 increases.
Wow, noknobs. I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I don't think the concentration is enough to make a difference. Like spit in the ocean. The evidence is there for you to refute. The red line is to the right of the blue line. That means CO2 rises after temperature. It's not the cause of higher temperature, but a side effect of it.
I also think there's an issue with frame of reference. If we happened to be in a downward trend cycle, the alarmists would be warning us of ice age and telling us to blow enormous sums of money to prevent that. See left green arrow. We are near the peak of an upward cycle (something like the right green arrow), so we think the apocalypse of fire and brimstone is upon us.
Lots of incurious flat-earthers here, and Denny isn't one of them. It's sickening to see how the AGW crowd has bastardized real science. Anybody still throwing around the thoroughly debunked 97% figure has no business trying to pass themselves as being educated on this topic. Stating without any embarrassment that AGW is a "fact" is someone who can't be reasoned with.
