Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

you just saw pages of science from nasa... then the beginning of my hypothesis. ..

here it is full blown...

co2 is to changes in temperature as taxes are to govt revenues along the laffer curve.

We are not sure where we are on the curve. But I think most would agree we would prefer to be on the warming side of the curve.

 

Wow, step away for an hour!

 

I just posted the abstract and a link to the peer reviewed paper a page or two ago.

you are willing to lie about it already...

and by the way I am about to start a new thread...

the title is going to drive you bananas...and so will the science.

 

and FC goes full retard. You never want to go full retard.

 

So you are saying that virtually the entire world's science community is wrong and you have it all figured out.

There is no higher concentration of CO2 in the troposphere that will lead to cooling. As the levels go higher the greenhouse effect also goes higher. This is baby stuff.

CO2 does NOT act like a thermostat nor does science say it does. One scientist used the term wrongly. He made a mistake. Of course that's good enough for you to run with. Just like virtually everything you have presented for your argument, it also is wrong. But of course you are interested in the actual truth.

 

Your typwriter left the second l out of "laffer"

reagan's boys were on the wrong side of the curver an didn't know it. Bingo. reagan made the US the greatest debtor nation in the world.

Cutting taxes when an increase is called for was soo sooo stupid.

PS: The two families of curves are not comparable.

Whatever junior college you went to was screwed up

You are also speaking about the wrong gas.

 

Odd that revenues went up after the regan tax cuts and it was the spending that out paced the revenues.

melon
kennedy
reagan and
bush tax cuts
after the bush tax cuts revenues went up 40% and the top one percent paid more.

see next post...
about bush tax cuts...

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/06/why-america-is-going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/


President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.

Bush did increase federal spending as a percent of GDP by one-seventh, erasing the federal spending cuts enacted by the Republican Congressional majorities in the 1990s. But even with that, deficits during the Bush years averaged just 2% of GDP, one-third less than the average over the prior 50 years. President Obama’s deficits have averaged 5 times as much, at 9.1% of GDP.

The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%. Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.

Because of that increased investment, labor productivity soared by 2.5% annually from 2003 to 2007, higher than the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. As a result, real after tax income per capita increased by more than 11%.

Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost doubled. After the Bush tax cuts started in 2001, quickly ending the 2001 recession, the economy continued to grow for another 73 months. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17%, meaning an additional $2.1 trillion for the American people.

This was mostly the opposite of what President Obama has produced, with his neo-Marxist Obamanomics, particularly unemployment more than twice as high, declining middle class incomes, soaring poverty, weak job growth, stagnant stock market values, collapsing business investment, and negligible growth in GDP.

Of course, the Bush tax cut boom was ended by the 2008 financial crisis. But as discussed in many previous columns, that was caused by the excessive overregulation of President Clinton’s home ownership promotion policies, creating the subprime mortgage market and the housing bubble, and by President Bush’s cheap dollar monetary policies. Obama’s foolish argument that the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008-2009 recession is so dishonest that abusive propaganda alone should disqualify him from office.

Obama’s gleeful termination of the Bush tax cuts will produce just the opposite results of those tax cuts. The combination of all the tax rate increases, along with Obama’s abusive overregulation, and the Fed’s continued mischief, will throw the economy back into recession next year. Unemployment will soar back into double digits, breaking the post depression record of 10.8%. The deficit will soar to over $2 trillion, setting new all time world records. The national debt as a percent of GDP will gallop past Greece.

Middle class incomes will plummet further. Poverty will soar to new all time records.

We can’t afford the Bush tax cuts, as Obama says? We can’t afford to terminate them. Over the past 45 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been increased, capital gains revenues have declined rather than increased.

 

here you go jack...

learn something about the laffer curve and taxes...

look in the first column... for tax receipts in current dollars...

then look at the years below the 1981 tax cuts and the 1986 tax cuts.


you will see tax revenues went up.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

 

1. No... I am saying the .3 percent of the science papers which say they know man made co2 is causing warming are guessing without science to back them up.

2. How many times do I have to show you this nasa study...
look at the sentence of this quoted section...
can you read it.....

Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. That is why they cool CO2 a thermostat... it can act as a cool mechanism or a warming mechanism.





http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.