This is a pretty balanced look at climate change

You like to say that taxing energy won't raise prices. You do that.

Wow...you responded 3 times. Quantity over quality?

First Post:
Thermo is thermo...my disagreement with you is in the understanding. In isolation everyone agrees with the concept...only problem is that it is not in isolation and no one understands it in relation to all the other things going on (i.e. is it significant or is it a drop in the bucket). However, you can look at reality and realize that it is nothing like what is claimed by most of the global warming hysterics (including yourself). Case in point...the global temp has not changed in 10-15 years and may be trending slightly downward even through CO2 levels have gone up 10+% (something like from 360ppm to a little under 400ppm). According to the "models" it should have changed pretty significantly (1 degree or so), which means the models are crap. Also means the predictions are crap, and its just as likely either some other effect(s) dominate over the changing CO2 level, the CO2 changes are resulting in some other counterbalance, or who knows. But simple logic and science shows the line you are spewing of being "known" and "proven" is BS.

Second Post:
Mann's stuff is false. Here is a good read from a believer in global warming (an apt term since its lost the science and is almost a religion now...and yes I am aware of his recent "conversion", although I have no idea how you are converted when you say you believe it to begin with, and would point out funding his pet project with his daughter seemed to have helped...)

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Doesn't address a lot of the other problems the hockey stick guys have in that and subsequent work including being addicted to pine cone data since it gives them the answers they want, but I think its especially appropriate for you since it was written 10 years ago and what he said might happen did...global temps didn't change over that time.

Third Post:
And your economic arguments are both elementary and in such a vacuum who knows where to start. 1) Taxing energy is a tax on the poor and middle class...accept that first. If not you might as well hop into a short bus. 2) If we implement cap and trade and even some countries don't, you might as well start a counter on the economic development that moves from here to those places. You can't place a tax on the US and Europe and not the developing world and not expect a huge flux of money/development to shift with it. 2) Propping up failing companies with ideas that are proven to be economic losers is idiocy only you (and a few others in govt now) could propose. You want to fund basic research in Universities to improve the efficiency of the technology go ahead...but propping up companies where the technology they are founded on is easily proven to be a loser in the current marketplace is stupid. Being very familiar with the current solar technology your estimates are beyond optimistic...all of the production is moving to China because no one can afford to build them here, and even with that their theoretical maximum efficiencies don't match the cost efficiency of current power generation methods. And that ignores the impact of an oscillating source of energy on the grid.

You really want to keep spinning this thread? Yikes...

BTW...are you inferring "global warming" caused the drought of 2012-13? What caused the dust bowel in the 30's etc? Why are you ignoring the impact of funneling 40% of the corn crop to ethanol? I hope you are not dumb enough to be suggesting such...it would really display how piss poor your science skills are...

CollegeDoog said:

And all the REAL scientists have listened to skeptics claims, taken them into account when assessing the data, and deemed them unfounded.

Stick to real estate and sports.

You are a fucking idiot.

There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either fact or not. AGW so far has proven to be a massive fraud. The fucking sun is responsible for heating the earth, not SUVs.


Michael Mann is a fraud. He is Jerry Sandusky part II for the shitty State Penn University. Computer models can be manipulated, just like your young feeble mind.

CollegeDoog said:

If the sun was solely responsible for heating the earth and the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the average temperatures on earth would be frigid.

Hth

The sun is practically entirely responsible for heating the earth.

Fuck, young people these days are stupid.

The earth has warmed around a degree since 1880, so let's burn trillions of dollars, reward fraud, politicize/ruin science, and trample liberty.

There are real negative externalities to pollution, anthropogenic global warming is not one of them. This AGW scam has distracted humanity from real pressing issues of concern while missallocating trillions of dollars that would be better invested elsewhere.

AGW zealots = bible thumpers. At least bible thumpers have been less successful at getting government to shovel their bullshit religion down my throat.