Majority of Americans still understand global warming, despite best efforts of Fox

[Zero Sum 305]

It is not about comfort level. The US government is not going to be funding this nonsense for a while, at least. You don't have to like it, them's the facts. Elections have consequences. As for the EPA riding to the rescue on the power of a Supreme Court decision...well, only if they exist. As I predicted, the Repubs controlling the purse strings will simply defund them. The EPA was invented by congress, it can be "disappeared" by Congress, specifically the House of Representatives.

Blaming it on the Repubs is just smoke also, the Dems had the House and Senate, filibuster proof, and a President that would sign anything for two years...and did nothing.

So you can deal with it how you will. It makes no difference if it is scientific or not. It ain't happenin'! The US congress is NOT going to fund it and the US congress is not going to tax our economy to pay for it. If the Brits or French or Aussies want to, have at it. I doubt it. I think you can pretty much rule out China or India doing anything about it. Japan is going to be bumping up their need for fossile fuel soon, so I don't think they are going to play the game. D'ya think? Fixing all that broken stuff is gonna take a lot of oil. Replacing all that nuke electricty is gonna take a lot of oil/gas/coal.

Nonsense to you. Not nonsense to scientists, and people that are actually paying attention to the data.

But now that you bring up a *probable* rise in CO2 emission... we'll see how the lag phase of the next 10-30 years responds. I'm sure by then your funding crusade will still be one about harping.

Oh and you need more all CAPS and exclamation marks too.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Nonsense to you. Not nonsense to scientists, and people that are actually paying attention to the data.

But now that you bring up a *probable* rise in CO2 emission... we'll see how the lag phase of the next 10-30 years responds. I'm sure by then your funding crusade will still be one about harping.

Oh and you need more all CAPS and exclamation marks too.

I WIN!!!!!!

[Zero Sum 305]

Winner.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

*probable* rise in CO2 emission... up awe'll see how the lag phase of the next 10-30 years responds.

I love that lag phase drivel. The modeling uses that only because they cannot show a causal effect, as CO₂ graph "lags" significantly behind the temperature graph. Any unbiased observer could safely assume an increase in atmospheric green house gases is a function of temperature, not the other way around.

[Zero Sum 305]

I love that lag phase drivel. The modeling uses that only because they cannot show a causal effect, as CO₂ graph "lags" significantly behind the temperature graph. Any unbiased observer could safely assume an increase in atmospheric green house gases is a function of temperature, not the other way around.

I believe I read that you are an engineer. Assuming everything followed a linear causal relationship would not make you a very good one. Please excuse the offensive statement. Maybe that's why you consider it drivel.

Factor in that this is a climate phenomenon, and the planet's atmosphere is a lot bigger than a ballon, with many causal factors at play.

But at least thank you for showing me that subscripts are possible on these threads.

There again is that statistical concept of 'significance'... I assume you mean it to be for a long period of time after noticeable emissions?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I believe I read that you are an engineer. Assuming everything followed a linear causal relationship would not make you a very good one. Please excuse the offensive statement. Maybe that's why you consider it drivel.

Factor in that this is a climate phenomenon, and the planet's atmosphere is a lot bigger than a ballon, with many causal factors at play.

You mean like simultaneous equations? You still can't ignore all that basic chemistry and physics just to shoehorn political ideology into a mathematical model.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Zero Sum 305]

Also... are you basing your 'unbiased' observer remark on the gas laws? Cause I just looked them up and the gas law that deals with gas volume and temperature say that temperature and volume are proportional. Blaming the order of things without considering historical fact about who came first is being dishonest. And on that note, any honest observer would note that the gradual climatic rise in temperature has followed the increases in CO₂ emissions.

You mean like simultaneous equations? You still can't ignore all that basic chemistry and physics just to shoehorn political ideology into a mathematical model.

My college major was chemistry.

[Zero Sum 305]

And notice who yells politics around these parts. Not the scientists.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There again is that statistical concept of 'significance'... I assume you mean it to be for a long period of time after noticeable emissions?

I mean it has been discussed here ad nauseam. For some reason carbon dioxide seems to be the exception to the rule, of other gases, in the minds of the scientific consensus that contains very few actual scientists.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

My college major was chemistry.

Then we studied similar subjects, like Physics and Calculus.

[Zero Sum 305]

I mean it has been discussed here ad nauseam. For some reason carbon dioxide seems to be the exception to the rule, of other gases, in the minds of the scientific consensus that contains very few actual scientists.

If they're that few, producing a concise list should be relatively easy.

Get outdoors tonight. The moon is almost coming up.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Also... are you basing your 'unbiased' observer remark on the gas laws? Cause I just looked them up and the gas law that deals with gas volume and temperature say that temperature and volume are proportional. Blaming the order of things without considering historical fact about who came first is being dishonest. And on that note, any honest observer would note that the gradual climatic rise in temperature has followed the increases in CO₂ emissions.

Damn! I just threw away the chart that shows little correlation historically for that prior to the last ice age.

If they're that few, producing a concise list should be relatively easy.

Get outdoors tonight. The moon is almost coming up.

It's raining and we are expecting 60 mph winds tonight. I'm on the west coast.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I believe I read that you are an engineer. Assuming everything followed a linear causal relationship would not make you a very good one. Please excuse the offensive statement. Maybe that's why you consider it drivel.

Factor in that this is a climate phenomenon, and the planet's atmosphere is a lot bigger than a ballon, with many causal factors at play.

But at least thank you for showing me that subscripts are possible on these threads.

There again is that statistical concept of 'significance'... I assume you mean it to be for a long period of time after noticeable emissions?

No more $$$ for you. Right or wrong. Your fault, my fault, anyone's fault. No more $$$ for you.

[Zero Sum 305]

If that what you want to delude yourself with, go for it champ.