A new culprit in the Global Warming debate

[WVPATX]

As I've posted many, many times, our climate is far too complex at this moment for scientist to accurately model. Now you introduce potential factors like this and the complexity goes off the charts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/...te-change-is-found-but-its-not-of-this-earth/

 

[Boomboom521]

If this desire to challenge man-made climate change assertions was not tied to your personal agenda, you might have credibility. You have to admit bias yourself.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Yes, and Mars must be lining our deep ocean trenches with trash also, we should proceed with no corrections in our human behaviors. Glad we figured this one out...Can we nuke Mars?

 

[WVPATX]

If this desire to challenge man-made climate change assertions was not tied to your personal agenda, you might have credibility. You have to admit bias yourself.

Boom, I am simply bringing up the fact that we know so little about climate science. It is relatively new. We used the little knowledge we have to model our climate and all the models were wrong. We could not even replicate past temperatures.

This is further evidence of factors that may affect our climate that many, many scientists did not even consider. This should be welcome news to you as we continue to learn more about our climate, no?

 

[WVPATX]

Yes, and Mars must be lining our deep ocean trenches with trash also, we should proceed with no corrections in our human behaviors. Glad we figured this one out...Can we nuke Mars?

Stupid, irrelevant post.

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, I am simply bringing up the fact that we know so little about climate science. It is relatively new. We used the little knowledge we have to model our climate and all the models were wrong. We could not even replicate past temperatures.

This is further evidence of factors that may affect our climate that many, many scientists did not even consider. This should be welcome news to you as we continue to learn more about our climate, no?

What you continue to miss the point on is....we DO KNOW the impacts on the environment and therefore the climate that human consumption, industry, and waste have, and it's these contributing variables into the very complex makeup of our climate that we must recognize and take steps to eliminate or at least lessen.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Boom, I am simply bringing up the fact that we know so little about climate science. It is relatively new. We used the little knowledge we have to model our climate and all the models were wrong. We could not even replicate past temperatures.

This is further evidence of factors that may affect our climate that many, many scientists did not even consider. This should be welcome news to you as we continue to learn more about our climate, no?

So, if our models are inaccurate should we not proceed with caution versus hubris? That sure seems like the definition of stupidity.

 

[op2]

The debate about the climate is going on constantly in the journals of the field...yesterday, today, tomorrow. It doesn't happen on pop websites.

 

[WVPATX]

What you continue to miss the point on is....we DO KNOW the impacts on the environment and therefore the climate that human consumption, industry, and waste have, and it's these contributing variables into the very complex makeup of our climate that we must recognize and take steps to eliminate or at least lessen.

Boom, if we knew the impacts, why are ALL the models wrong? Why did the IPCC admit the hiatus in warming (that none of the models predicted)? Why can't we replicate past temperatures when we have historical evidence to plug into the models?

Shouldn't more information about possible climate actions be good? Shouldn't this knowledge be welcomed? It may have something to do with warming, it may now. But these scientists are asserting that our past temperatures were influenced by the orbits or Mars and Earth. What are you afraid of?

 

[op2]

So, if our models are inaccurate should we not proceed with caution versus hubris? That sure seems like the definition of stupidity.

As George Box once said "All models are wrong but some models are useful."

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Stupid, irrelevant post.

Yes, I can see where the sarcasm might fly right over your shoulder.

 

[WVPATX]

The debate about the climate is going on constantly in the journals of the field...yesterday, today, tomorrow. It doesn't happen on pop websites.

LMAO. So these scientists don't exist. Their research doesn't exist? It doesn't matter who reports their theories or findings, it matters if it is true or not. If you have proof that these scientists don't exist or that these theories are not their product, fine, produce it.

Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

 

[WVPATX]

As George Box once said "All models are wrong but some models are useful."

As Judity Curry said, if we can't produce historic temperatures by plugging in actual, historic data into the models, the models must by definition be wrong.

 

[op2]

LMAO. So these scientists don't exist. Their research doesn't exist? It doesn't matter who reports their theories or findings, it matters if it is true or not. If you have proof that these scientists don't exist or that these theories are not their product, fine, produce it.

Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

I didn't say that at all. I said the scientists debate this stuff constantly in their journals. it's their job and their life. What we see on a pop website here or there isn't the point.

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, if we knew the impacts, why are ALL the models wrong? Why did the IPCC admit the hiatus in warming (that none of the models predicted)? Why can't we replicate past temperatures when we have historical evidence to plug into the models?

Shouldn't more information about possible climate actions be good? Shouldn't this knowledge be welcomed? It may have something to do with warming, it may now. But these scientists are asserting that our past temperatures were influenced by the orbits or Mars and Earth. What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid of pro-business people like you using this information as a blank check on our Earth. Just keep taking and taking, damaging and damaging until there's no doubt we are in a lot of trouble. Oh I know, I know....Dyson says all will be ok in time....but we have only one Earth. I'd like to be careful with it.

 

[op2]

As Judity Curry said, if we can't produce historic temperatures by plugging in actual, historic data into the models, the models must by definition be wrong.

By definition ALL models are wrong. But some are useful.

 

[WVPATX]

By definition ALL models are wrong. But some are useful.

If these models can't reproduce historical data based on actual inputs, then the models are of little to no use and certainly should NOT be used to make national policy or trillions of dollars of investment.

 

[WVPATX]

I'm afraid of pro-business people like you using this information as a blank check on our Earth. Just keep taking and taking, damaging and damaging until there's no doubt we are in a lot of trouble. Oh I know, I know....Dyson says all will be ok in time....but we have only one Earth. I'd like to be careful with it.

I'd also be careful not to overreact and in the process do great harm to the people of this planet. We all want clean air and water. We also want people to be lifted out of poverty enabling them to lead good, productive lives. It provides the opportunity for much greater world stability and even peace.

 

[TarHeelEer]

The debate about the climate is going on constantly in the journals of the field...yesterday, today, tomorrow. It doesn't happen on pop websites.

Disagree. When science enters politics with recommendations of taxes and the sort, it is open to public scrutiny. Science can't isolate itself when it wants, and come and go from the real world.

So how does a tax help us nuke Mars? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Boomboom521]

I'd also be careful not to overreact and in the process do great harm to the people of this planet. We all want clean air and water. We also want people to be lifted out of poverty enabling them to lead good, productive lives. It provide the opportunity for much greater world stability and even peace.

But we want incredible US wealth first, right? CEO's make almost 350 times more in the US than the average worker....second most is Sweden at almost 150. In South Korea, its 41 times. There are ways to stabilize our economy and protect the Earth at the same time.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

LMAO. So these scientists don't exist. Their research doesn't exist? It doesn't matter who reports their theories or findings, it matters if it is true or not. If you have proof that these scientists don't exist or that these theories are not their product, fine, produce it.

Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

This is a shiny ball article, look, look over there...

 

[TarHeelEer]

But we want incredible US wealth first, right? CEO's make almost 350 times more in the US than the average worker....second most is Sweden at almost 150. In South Korea, its 41 times. There are ways to stabilize our economy and protect the Earth at the same time.

We know both parties, and neither as they were, were the answer. Conservatives wanted to kill grandma, pollute everything around us, and suck up to the CEO's. Democrats promised tax the wealthy, then really taxed the middle class and spent. Neither taxes Mr. Fat Cat, because Mr. Fat Cat pays for him to get elected.

Does the public want clean air? Yes. Should the feds be regulating fireplaces in Alaska? No.

 

[WVPATX]

But we want incredible US wealth first, right? CEO's make almost 350 times more in the US than the average worker....second most is Sweden at almost 150. In South Korea, its 41 times. There are ways to stabilize our economy and protect the Earth at the same time.

What does this have to do with global warming? You're socialistic tendencies are showing.

Back to the point at hand. If the models are all wrong, how can we base our global warming policies on flawed models. We know 3rd world and developing countries absolutely need low cost energy to climb out of poverty. The U.S. certainly did. Why subject them to poverty, disease and all the accompanying ills?

As I have said many, many times, we can have both clean water, air and use low cost fossil fuels. The warmist's don't believe it or don't want to believe it. They want to eliminate fossil fuels thus destroying the opportunity for these countries to climb out of poverty.

We must get a much, much firmer handle on the causes of global warming before taking drastic action. We do know that the CO2 is making the earth greener. We know that warmer temperatures are healthier than colder temperatures.

We have a long, long way to go and a lot of learning to do.

 

[Boomboom521]

We know both parties, and neither as they were, were the answer. Conservatives wanted to kill grandma, pollute everything around us, and suck up to the CEO's. Democrats promised tax the wealthy, then really taxed the middle class and spent. Neither taxes Mr. Fat Cat, because Mr. Fat Cat pays for him to get elected.

Does the public want clean air? Yes. Should the feds be regulating fireplaces in Alaska? No.

Agree

 

[op2]

What does this have to do with global warming? You're socialistic tendencies are showing.

Back to the point at hand. If the models are all wrong, how can we base our global warming policies on flawed models. We know 3rd world and developing countries absolutely need low cost energy to climb out of poverty. The U.S. certainly did. Why subject them to poverty, disease and all the accompanying ills?

As I have said many, many times, we can have both clean water, air and use low cost fossil fuels. The warmist's don't believe it or don't want to believe it. They want to eliminate fossil fuels thus destroying the opportunity for these countries to climb out of poverty.

We must get a much, much firmer handle on the causes of global warming before taking drastic action. We do know that the CO2 is making the earth greener. We know that warmer temperatures are healthier than colder temperatures.

We have a long, long way to go and a lot of learning to do.

"Back to the point at hand. If the models are all wrong, how can we base our global warming policies on flawed models."

Because although all models are wrong, some models are useful.

"We know 3rd world and developing countries absolutely need low cost energy to climb out of poverty. The U.S. certainly did. Why subject them to poverty, disease and all the accompanying ills?"

The developed world use a lot more energy per capita than the non-developed world. Thus using dirty energy in the developed world has much more of an effect than it does in the undeveloped world. You're right, poor countries need the cheap energy to pull themselves out of poverty. That gets to the general notion of why countries don't get into environmentalism until after they get wealthy. Caring about the environment is a luxury that poor countries can't afford.

So let the poor countries continue to use dirty sources as they develop. The wealthy countries meanwhile will develop the clean sources and transition over, reducing a lot of pollution in the process because the wealthy countries are the ones that consume so much energy.

Then, after the clean sources have become developed enough so that they're cheap and after the poor countries are not so poor as they used to be and start caring about the environment, the poor countries can start using the clean sources too. That's the idea. Nobody expects poor countries to start paying more for energy.

 

[79eer]

So how does a tax help us nuke Mars? Inquiring minds want to know

Probably not, usually ends up going to underdeveloped countries to "fight the effects of Climate Change" i.e. wealth redistribution ( one of the causes in the Clinton Foundation's list of charitable giving ). Funny stuff.

 

[WVPATX]

"Back to the point at hand. If the models are all wrong, how can we base our global warming policies on flawed models."

Because although all models are wrong, some models are useful.

"We know 3rd world and developing countries absolutely need low cost energy to climb out of poverty. The U.S. certainly did. Why subject them to poverty, disease and all the accompanying ills?"

The developed world use a lot more energy per capita than the non-developed world. Thus using dirty energy in the developed world has much more of an effect than it does in the undeveloped world. You're right, poor countries need the cheap energy to pull themselves out of poverty. That gets to the general notion of why countries don't get into environmentalism until after they get wealthy. Caring about the environment is a luxury that poor countries can't afford.

So let the poor countries continue to use dirty sources as they develop. The wealthy countries meanwhile will develop the clean sources and transition over, reducing a lot of pollution in the process because the wealthy countries are the ones that consume so much energy.

Then, after the clean sources have become developed enough so that they're cheap and after the poor countries are not so poor as they used to be and start caring about the environment, the poor countries can start using the clean sources too. That's the idea. Nobody expects poor countries to start paying more for energy.

Interesting plan, but I have a better, more realistic plan.

1. You have to accept the fact that green energy is nowhere near ready to supply the U.S. with all of our energy needs
2. You have to accept the fact that green energy (as Obama said) will necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket). Why should Americans pay an artificially high price for fuel? Why should businesses that complete globally have to pay higher prices than their competition? What happens to jobs?
3. Why not share our energy technologies with 3re world countries today. Take Sub-Saharan Africa. We can export LNG (a very clean burning fuel) to help them gain access to cheap energy and build their economies. Why not share scrubber technologies?
4. You are making huge changes to our economy with zero proof that man is causing global warming, that the global warming is unstoppable, that global warming will only continue to rise (despite the hiatus). You are basing these changes on models that can't even replicate past temperatures.
5. You don't seem to acknowledge that climate science is relatively new and we have much to learn before making drastic changes to our economy.

Until we know more, use an all of the above approach. Continue green energy research in hopes of providing more efficiency, effectiveness and bring down costs. Continue to explore new technologies that make fossil fuels even cleaner. Continue researching global warming, but get those with agendas on both sides of this issue out of the process. These scientists must be fully transparent, don't destroy data (like at NOAA and East Anglia) and must comply with all federal laws. And the warmist's must stop their campaign to silence skeptics, they must publish peer reviewed skeptical articles and research and they must stop making only one sided adjustments in historical temperatures.

 

[op2]

Interesting plan, but I have a better, more realistic plan.

1. You have to accept the fact that green energy is nowhere near ready to supply the U.S. with all of our energy needs
2. You have to accept the fact that green energy (as Obama said) will necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket). Why should Americans pay an artificially high price for fuel? Why should businesses that complete globally have to pay higher prices than their competition? What happens to jobs?
3. Why not share our energy technologies with 3re world countries today. Take Sub-Saharan Africa. We can export LNG (a very clean burning fuel) to help them gain access to cheap energy and build their economies. Why not share scrubber technologies?
4. You are making huge changes to our economy with zero proof that man is causing global warming, that the global warming is unstoppable, that global warming will only continue to rise (despite the hiatus). You are basing these changes on models that can't even replicate past temperatures.
5. You don't seem to acknowledge that climate science is relatively new and we have much to learn before making drastic changes to our economy.

Until we know more, use an all of the above approach. Continue green energy research in hopes of providing more efficiency, effectiveness and bring down costs. Continue to explore new technologies that make fossil fuels even cleaner. Continue researching global warming, but get those with agendas on both sides of this issue out of the process. These scientists must be fully transparent, don't destroy data (like at NOAA and East Anglia) and must comply with all federal laws. And the warmist's must stop their campaign to silence skeptics, they must publish peer reviewed skeptical articles and research and they must stop making only one sided adjustments in historical temperatures.

When did Obama say that? 8-9 years ago? That's an eternity with how fast technology changes.

"Why should Americans pay an artificially high price for fuel?"

They shouldn't. They should pay the true cost. That's why there should be a carbon tax. Fossil fuels have a cost that right now is not built into the cost the consumer pays.

 

[WVPATX]

When did Obama say that? 8-9 years ago? That's an eternity with how fast technology changes.

"Why should Americans pay an artificially high price for fuel?"

They shouldn't. They should pay the true cost. That's why there should be a carbon tax. Fossil fuels have a cost that right now is not built into the cost the consumer pays.

A carbon tax by definition is " an artificial price." Not sure how you don't know this.

And the cost of green energy without government subsidies is still well above fossil fuels. Let the market decide. Remove all subsidies from both fossil fuels and from green energy.

 

[op2]

A carbon tax by definition is " an artificial price." Not sure how you don't know this.

And the cost of green energy without government subsidies is still well above fossil fuels. Let the market decide. Remove all subsidies from both fossil fuels and from green energy.

No it isn't. A true price is paying all the costs associated with a product. If you can shove some of the costs of onto society instead then you're paying an artificially low price.

Yes, remove all the subsidies...all of them That would include the hundreds of billions of dollars we pay to keep the oil flowing in the Middle East.

It's not 1975. It's 2017. Times are changing.

 

[WVPATX]

No it isn't. A true price is paying all the costs associated with a product. If you can shove some of the costs of onto society instead then you're paying an artificially low price.

Yes, remove all the subsidies...all of them That would include the hundreds of billions of dollars we pay to keep the oil flowing in the Middle East.

It's not 1975. It's 2017. Times are changing.

We pay hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Middle East oil flowing? Where did you get that stat? And don't confuse military spending (e.g. kicking Iraq out of Kuwait) as spending on oil (regional stability is a national security issues as can be seen by the millions of migrants now flooding the world), not to mention the instability of terrorism and war. BTW, did we take Iraq's oil after kicking out Saddam? No.

We have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest coal reserves. We are no longer dependent on Middle East oil. Canada is now our largest exporter of oil to the U.S. Saudi Arabia is now second but their share has been halved in 10 years now down to 14% of our oil imports and going down even more with our ability to produce our own oil. And if the Middle East explodes, we have enormous capacity to export oil and gas and yes coal to the world.

 

[op2]

We pay hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Middle East oil flowing? Where did you get that stat? And don't confuse military spending (e.g. kicking Iraq out of Kuwait) as spending on oil (regional stability is a national security issues as can be seen by the millions of migrants now flooding the world), not to mention the instability of terrorism and war. BTW, did we take Iraq's oil after kicking out Saddam? No.

We have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest coal reserves. We are no longer dependent on Middle East oil. Canada is now our largest exporter of oil to the U.S. Saudi Arabia is now second but their share has been halved in 10 years now down to 14% of our oil imports and going down even more with our ability to produce our own oil. And if the Middle East explodes, we have enormous capacity to export oil and gas and yes coal to the world.

If the Middle East explodes the price of oil is going to skyrocket and thus we spend a large amount of money to keep stability there. Do you think we're so buddy-buddy with them because we like societies that treat women like animals and that export religious fundamentalism?

 

[WVPATX]

If the Middle East explodes the price of oil is going to skyrocket and thus we spend a large amount of money to keep stability there. Do you think we're so buddy-buddy with them because we like societies that treat women like animals and that export religious fundamentalism?

Very poor argument and you made no case for us spending hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing oil. Simply not true.

If the Middle East explodes, oil will rise, no question. Then the other oil producing countries will take action. Russia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, the United States, etc. Oil prices will rise but so will production from these countries and others. This is not 20 years ago. Fracking has made a huge difference.

We are not buddy buddy with the Middle East. We want peace for the reasons mentioned in my prior post. The migrant situation has destabilized much of Europe. We have no relationship with Syria or Iran. Saudi relationship is strained. We have ok relationships with the other gulf states. Iraq relationship is ok but strained.

If oil get to just $60 - $70/bbl, Saudi imports will drop dramatically. Oil exports from the U.S. will rise.

In late December the US Congress lifted a 40 year ban on exporting oil. By late January the first shiploads of oil were off to Europe.

Now it is reported that the US has turned into an ‘oil nation’ with record exports, ‘eating’ away at OPEC’s market share:

The U.S. exported a record amount of crude oil, topping a million barrels a day for a second week and filling the gap in world markets created by OPEC cutbacks.

Shale and other U.S. producers sent 1.2 million barrels of crude oil onto world markets last week, up nearly 200,000 barrels a day from the week earlier and about 350,000 barrels above the four-week average, according to Energy Information Administration data. Until recently, the U.S. was exporting about 500,000 barrels a day.

With the US entering the world oil market, “OPEC doesn’t really control the oil market any more”. OPEC is compiled of a number of terror states, so taking away the only real source of income for these states, is a very good thing.

It’s about time that US oil can legally be exported – Along with prosperity it makes the world safer.

 

[Mntneer]

 

[mneilmont]

When did Obama say that? 8-9 years ago? That's an eternity with how fast technology changes.

"Why should Americans pay an artificially high price for fuel?"

They shouldn't. They should pay the true cost. That's why there should be a carbon tax. Fossil fuels have a cost that right now is not built into the cost the consumer pays.

Opie, help me make a distinction of who is going to pay? Carbon tax or increased cost in raw product going into cost of a fuel? How does the consumer not pay added cost regardless of what you call it. Increased cost via added cost to selling, or added cost in the purchase of raw product hidden in the cost of purchase? Consumer pays the cost either way. Tell me what your argument is?

 

[WVPATX]

Opie, help me make a distinction of who is going to pay? Carbon tax or increased cost in raw product going into cost of a fuel? How does the consumer not pay added cost regardless of what you call it. Increased cost via added cost to selling, or added cost in the purchase of raw product hidden in the cost of purchase? Consumer pays the cost either way. Tell me what your argument is?

A carbon tax just like a cigarette tax, sugar tax, etc. disproportionately hits the poorest among us. Very, very regressive tax.

 

[op2]

Opie, help me make a distinction of who is going to pay? Carbon tax or increased cost in raw product going into cost of a fuel? How does the consumer not pay added cost regardless of what you call it. Increased cost via added cost to selling, or added cost in the purchase of raw product hidden in the cost of purchase? Consumer pays the cost either way. Tell me what your argument is?

Fossil fuels put carbon into the air, which warms the planet and thus incurs costs to deal the change. But society as a whole has to pay the cost because the bill comes due down the road when more flooding occurs or more severe storms occur, etc, which as I understand it is already happening now.

Thus instead of society paying those costs down the road, the consumers of fossil fuels should pay the costs now. And if the consumer of fossil fuels pays the cost now then using fossil fuels becomes less attractive, leading people to use less of them in the form of using less energy in general or switching to other forms of energy.

 

[WVPATX]

Fossil fuels put carbon into the air, which warms the planet and thus incurs costs to deal the change. But society as a whole has to pay the cost because the bill comes due down the road when more flooding occurs or more severe storms occur, etc, which as I understand it is already happening now.

Thus instead of society paying those costs down the road, the consumers of fossil fuels should pay the costs now. And if the consumer of fossil fuels pays the cost now then using fossil fuels becomes less attractive, leading people to use less of them in the form of using less energy in general or switching to other forms of energy.

Again, you. have made a huge leap. You are claiming that CO2 is a pollutant (something we exhale as we breath) and that man is responsible for global warming even thought the models you rely on (or scientists rely on) are all WRONG.

And all the predictions of more hurricanes, more droughts, more tornadoes, etc. have. not happened. You can produce articles saying they have and I can produce articles saying they haven't.

Until we have proof that man is causing global warming, that is is dangerous, we can't rely on models that have proven themselves incapable of even reproducing historical temperatures when fed actual historical data.

 

[op2]

Again, you. have made a huge leap. You are claiming that CO2 is a pollutant (something we exhale as we breath) and that man is responsible for global warming even thought the models you rely on (or scientists rely on) are all WRONG.

And all the predictions of more hurricanes, more droughts, more tornadoes, etc. have. not happened. You can produce articles saying they have and I can produce articles saying they haven't.

Until we have proof that man is causing global warming, that is is dangerous, we can't rely on models that have proven themselves incapable of even reproducing historical temperatures when fed actual historical data.

You're moving the goalposts. The whole argument hinges on fossil fuels warming the planet. If fossil fuels don't warm the planet then of course a carbon tax makes no sense.

 

[WVPATX]

You're moving the goalposts. The whole argument hinges on fossil fuels warming the planet. If fossil fuels don't warm the planet then of course a carbon tax makes no sense.

No, the argument hinges on two factors. Is man responsible for global warming AND is it harmful? We must have HARM before remedy, right?