Yes, Rolling Stone does good work in this area.

 

If we discredit every news for one bad reporter, I guess we close them all down.

But......Rolling Stone put out one of the biggest "Fake News" stories of all time. I think they should always be viewed with suspicion at this point.

Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases and the strongest. That is a scientific fact, not theory. So tax and cap the clouds libs, good luck with that. Breathing and eating add about .001 percent so if you really want to make a difference stop doing both......

"Like nothing we’ve ever seen

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

 

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. "

 

From the article. Did we read two different things

 

Perhaps you didn't read the whole article you posted the link to. My quote was pulled directly out of the story you linked.

 

You only focused on the headline and opening paragraph that talks about how the planet was hotter when human beings didn't exist. And now the planet is headed back towards those high temperatures. So where do human beings fit into that picture?

Through the persecution of so-called "climate change deniers," which is what Exxon-Mobil is facing, and increased energy costs for companies that are always passed on to consumers. When energy costs rise needlessly because of government regulation, our standard of living suffers. Excessive regulation to deal with an unproven crisis is nothing more than a hidden tax that deprives us of the money we have earned. Anything that dictates how we spend our earnings and restricts the products available in the marketplace are infringements on both our economic and personal liberty. The two are inseparable.

 

Would you rather have cheaper goods and services today, or a planet capable of supporting human life in 100 years? You seem to be ok with cheaper goods and services and don't care about the future of the planet. Is that accurate?

Perhaps you didn't read the whole article you posted the link to. My quote was pulled directly out of the story you linked.

 

You only focused on the headline and opening paragraph that talks about how the planet was hotter when human beings didn't exist. And now the planet is headed back towards those high temperatures. So where do human beings fit into that picture?

 

We have a part it is significantly small. The earth goes through changes naturally and has before and will during us and after us. The main greenhouse contributer that makes up what is considered green house gases is water vapor at 95%. How does carbon taxing fix any of that. 97% of carbon emmissions are naturally occuring.

Would you rather have cheaper goods and services today, or a planet capable of supporting human life in 100 years? You seem to be ok with cheaper goods and services and don't care about the future of the planet. Is that accurate?

 

I care about the poor and middle class much more than I do self righteous tour of the Climate change industry. The highest powered rich liberals and those Hollywopd elite who campaign heavily on radical changes have little to no understanding how most their ideas impact the average American.

How Much of Atmospheric CO2 Increase is Natural?

 

 

Found this interesting. Found the discussions in the comments as much if not more educational as the article. Especially the fact that Co2 levels trail temperature fluxuations not the other way around.

Would you rather have cheaper goods and services today, or a planet capable of supporting human life in 100 years? You seem to be ok with cheaper goods and services and don't care about the future of the planet. Is that accurate?

No, that is not accurate at all - a total distortion of what I said. We are not facing a choice between extinction and a loss of liberty. We are facing a choice between socialism and liberty.

NASA will go full "denier" the next four years?

Hopefully, NASA will abandon its junk science projects in four years and stop "adjusting" historical data in a quest to meet political objectives.

Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases and the strongest. That is a scientific fact, not theory. So tax and cap the clouds libs, good luck with that. Breathing and eating add about .001 percent so if you really want to make a difference stop doing both......

 

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

 

In the article below it mentions there is 3 times more nitrogen in the atmosphere than oxygen, but it's safe to say oxygen is more important.

 

Forbes Welcome

 

"...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables."

But......Rolling Stone put out one of the biggest "Fake News" stories of all time. I think they should always be viewed with suspicion at this point.

 

Fake News makes zero attempt to tell the truth.

The RS/UVA scandal was a result of a lying victim and an overzealous reporter.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

 

In the article below it mentions there is 3 times more nitrogen in the atmosphere than oxygen, but it's safe to say oxygen is more important.

 

Forbes Welcome

 

"...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables."

 

Co2 levels trail tempurature spikes not lead it. Therfore you should be able to conclude that it is not the cause of tempurature fluxuations. We need to look to the sun and radiant energy more than what we are doing. That would explain tempurature and water vapor. The sun just like our climate is not static and should not be thought as so.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

 

In the article below it mentions there is 3 times more nitrogen in the atmosphere than oxygen, but it's safe to say oxygen is more important.

 

Forbes Welcome

 

"...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables."

 

Co2 levels trail tempurature spikes not lead it. Therfore you should be able to conclude that it is not the cause of tempurature fluxuations. We need to look to the sun and radiant energy more than what we are doing. That would explain tempurature and water vapor variances. The sun just like our climate is not static and should not be thought as so.

Co2 levels trail tempurature spikes not lead it. Therfore you should be able to conclude that it is not the cause of tempurature fluxuations. We need to look to the sun and radiant energy more than what we are doing. That would explain tempurature and water vapor variances. The sun just like our climate is not static and should not be thought as so.

 

That was the pattern prior to man burning carbon. Now we are adding carbon to the atmosphere and accelerating the warming period.

 

Look at the sun? :eek: What the heck can we do about the sun?

 

Sadly, per topic thread, Exxon will lead state dept. policy, and Oil will be our primary focus while the issues we discuss are discredited and shoved on the back burner.

That was the pattern prior to man burning carbon. Now we are adding carbon to the atmosphere and accelerating the warming period.

 

Look at the sun? :eek: What the heck can we do about the sun?

 

Sadly, per topic thread, Exxon will lead state dept. policy, and Oil will be our primary focus while the issues we discuss are discredited and shoved on the back burner.

 

You can't do anything to the sun, which is as much responsible for the weather as anything, which is why trying to control the climate is just as futile. The saying " it is what it is" applies. We have added .3 of 1% of the carbon, which is what 3% of the atmoshphere. The other 99.7 % of the carbon is naturally occuring.

 

Just for the conversation we'll play along and say man made global warming is real. How does taxing carbon fix the climate?