I'm waiting for you to: 1) Prove you can purposefully change the earth's climate. 2) demonstrate how taxing capitalism solves the above?
If there were seriously any man made global warming it could easily be countered with particulate dispersion throughout the upper atmosphere. It has been estimated to cost roughly $1 billion per year to cool the planet. So, why demand $14 trillion to solve a problem that doesn't exist when less than 0.1% of that money could solve the problem if it were real? Answer: It's just a scam to keep certain scientists in jobs and to try to get money out of the richer western countries and diminish their economies. But, there are plenty of people out there who never wise up. They just can't see through the haze to see the real story. FC is one of those.
pspr just cited a scheme that could change the earth's climate, or cool it down. Particle dispersion in the upper atmosphere. Ask him to explain it!
given that every educated person now nows that temperature precedes CO2 accumulation and dissipation... the very best the agw nuts can come with is that CO2 amplifies warming which already occurred. Which is a guess.... here is a summary of the very recent agw paper... admitting warming started the release of CO2 and then tossing in their greenhouse theory... this is from an pro agw website.... A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that: The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2). and here is the graph showing you http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Phoenix Trading, sorry to have to be the one to bring you bad news, but there is some fairly decent evidence that your "theory" is not fact. Although, you had asked Futurecurrents to explain it to you, perhaps you will permit me to explain instead. The Republican party has traditionally been strongly aligned with corporate interests, more so at least in the realm of political debate then the Democrats -- both parties, of course, tend to be very friendly to business interests in the actual governing of the country. This is why you see the position on global warming divided along political lines. It has not so much to do with science as it does with politics. Republicans seem too anxious to dismiss science that they believe might prove harmful to bottom line corporate profits. Here is a specific example of the same sort of thing that is happening now with the debate on climate, but having to do instead with the 1980's debate on the ozone hole. At that time we saw, just as we do today, the Republicans aligned against the science. The reason was that the freon industry started by DuPont was huge world wide, and if we were to get rid of Freons as propellants and refrigerants, there would be a large, economic impact. Thus then, as now, the detractors, for the most part, were aligned with the Republican party, and a fairly heavy concentration of them was found in the ironically named "conservative think-tanks." Apparently, the kind of "thinking" in those organizations is more like that in the Fox News organization then among a group of intellectuals looking dispassionately at facts. Here is the link to a very nice article by Dr. Jeff Masters that will explain very nicely why the ozone hole proponents and detractors were aligned along political lines. There is, I would say, a perfect parallel between that earlier issue and the global warming issue today. We see the same kind of political alignment now as we saw then, and for the same reasons. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp In case there is any lingering doubt among conservative political "thinkers" as to freons causing an ozone hole, let me point out that the science related to stratospheric ozone is rock solid. No informed person questions that science today. The detailed gas kinetics of ozone generation and catalytic destruction via the ClO radical coming from freons that have diffused into the stratosphere was worked out in detail, experimentally tested, and proven correct by Rowland and Molina and they rightfully won the Nobel prize for this work. To be fair, I should point out that the science as it relates to global warming, and especially the anthropomorphic aspects are not yet so well laid out. But that is not why the global warming debate is aligned along political lines.
No? I thought I noticed several factual charts/graphs being presented that debunk your religion. Did you merely dismiss them out of hand?
FC was staring in a mirror as he typed that post. He's the one who posts nothing or debunked science. Another case of the pig calling the hog fat. Or something like that.