More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[gnarlylove]

Solar bear, I can call you that right cuz you just blinded me with some stuff I don't find relevant to my main argument. I knew I should have never made a passing comment on subsidy because you took that sentence and used it as the base for your whole reply.

I don't care to talk about tax credits and the fact that I know ceasing fossil fuels today is stupid. I don't know how many times I have to sternly warn against wildly unfeasible change in our complex socio-economic structure. Why must you keep insisting on strawmen and caricatures? I wager it's the only way you can reply and still have some counter point, otherwise, god forbid we agree on a very simple point. Let me go over it one more time, it's super simple logic.

You keep expanding my points to mean way more than their very berry simple formula.

Fossil fuels will end.
Therefore in order to supply energy, someday we will have to stop using them.
This can be gradual or it can be forced and abrupt.
We may disagree on the time frame when fossil fuels will cease given population growth and a net increase in consumption but fossil fuels cannot supply energy for more than 500 years at the most conservative estimate.
Thus, it's way ahead of the curve (and evidently your paradigm) to promote renewable energy. Moreover, not only will we inevitably come to depend on renewable energy, it behooves us ethically as well by offering less negative environmental and social impacts (like the coal chemical spill 2 counties from my home or the BP spill etc). These events obviously were bad; PR wise, economically (for the local community) and environmentally.
Thus I think promoting renewable energy is good for the future and good for humanity. I don't doubt renewable energy can not provide our current energy demands. Does that mean it can or never will? Rhetorical question.

I'm not claiming there arent downfalls like oil will eventually become too expensive to make a profit thus putting slick oilers outta business but what is our goal as civilization anyway? Simply to produce more and consume more? or to make the world a better place in which unnecessary ethical disasters/harms are prevented.

Again, this is a simple a matter of eventuality, I'm NOT saying "SEE LETS STOP FOSSIL FUELS TODAY AND LOOK HOW GOOD IT IS FOR HUMANITY? MMMMHMMM WHOLESOME!" Fuk no I'm not claiming something wild like that, I'm merely noting how perceptive it is to push for renewable energy because it is inevtiable. So why keep resisting it? Not rhetorical.

I don't want to discuss the details of applying renewable energy without you first understanding my argument. Have you got it?
When I say renewables I mean solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, nuclear, algae and other not yet invented sources. When I envision America using renewables, I simply mean that we must use all the sources available and pool them together to produce a sensible energy grid for the whole US. Using geography and climate to a region's advantage instead of depending on coal to be shipped cross country or even using that coal if it's sensible for the region. I'm talking of course ideally, which is different from what I propose happen today: keep using coal.

I do not doubt we can supplement fossil fuels with renewables and we are, right now, providing some 3%. So my main argument is that someday fossil fuels will be a supplement to renewables instead of the other way around where fossil fuels only account for 10% or so of energy consumption. This is inevitable and necessary, this is my main argument and has thus far gone mostly unchallenged.

I want to be clear I know renewable companies are given money directly and not fossil fuels technically. However, it is naive to think fossil fuel companies don't benefit from various types of subsidies and that makes up a significant portion of their sales. There are about 7 ways subsidies can be dished out, I mean we read the same wikipedia page. Just because you are not being handed a check doesn't mean that fossil fuel industry is not benefiting from a subsidy. Are you playing me or yourself for a chump?

Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together and try to love one another, right now.

 

[orogenicman]

The skeptics are winning because of confusion....

Science can win by using science to show the common man how co2 works within experimental form that the skeptics can't spin. Next we have to show the complexity of the system and this is why we have to teach people how the positive forcing is part of a larger forcing that is our climate system....

The common man doesn't understand that oceans have huge effects
The common man doesn't understand that the climate of one place that is normally 20f during January can warm up to 25f = more snow. Simply because the air can hold more moisture.
The common man doesn't understand and it is the jobs of the noaa to make him understand.

How about a list of things that would falsify AGW?

As it stands now......
more rain = AGW
less rain = AGW
colder = AGW
warmer = AGW
floods = AGW
droughts = AGW

Is there anything this incredible AGW cannot do?

Yes. It cannot freeze over the equator.

 

[skookerasbil]

Solar bear, I can call you that right cuz you just blinded me with some stuff I don't find relevant to my main argument. I knew I should have never made a passing comment on subsidy because you took that sentence and used it as the base for your whole reply.

I don't care to talk about tax credits and the fact that I know ceasing fossil fuels today is stupid. I don't know how many times I have to sternly warn against wildly unfeasible change in our complex socio-economic structure. Why must you keep insisting on strawmen and caricatures? I wager it's the only way you can reply and still have some counter point, otherwise, god forbid we agree on a very simple point. Let me go over it one more time, it's super simple logic.

You keep expanding my points to mean way more than their very berry simple formula.

Fossil fuels will end.
Therefore in order to supply energy, someday we will have to stop using them.
This can be gradual or it can be forced and abrupt.
We may disagree on the time frame when fossil fuels will cease given population growth and a net increase in consumption but fossil fuels cannot supply energy for more than 500 years at the most conservative estimate.
Thus, it's way ahead of the curve (and evidently your paradigm) to promote renewable energy. Moreover, not only will we inevitably come to depend on renewable energy, it behooves us ethically as well by offering less negative environmental and social impacts (like the coal chemical spill 2 counties from my home or the BP spill etc). These events obviously were bad; PR wise, economically (for the local community) and environmentally.
Thus I think promoting renewable energy is good for the future and good for humanity. I don't doubt renewable energy can not provide our current energy demands. Does that mean it can or never will? Rhetorical question.

I'm not claiming there arent downfalls like oil will eventually become too expensive to make a profit thus putting slick oilers outta business but what is our goal as civilization anyway? Simply to produce more and consume more? or to make the world a better place in which unnecessary ethical disasters/harms are prevented.

Again, this is a simple a matter of eventuality, I'm NOT saying "SEE LETS STOP FOSSIL FUELS TODAY AND LOOK HOW GOOD IT IS FOR HUMANITY? MMMMHMMM WHOLESOME!" Fuk no I'm not claiming something wild like that, I'm merely noting how perceptive it is to push for renewable energy because it is inevtiable. So why keep resisting it? Not rhetorical.

I don't want to discuss the details of applying renewable energy without you first understanding my argument. Have you got it?
When I say renewables I mean solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, nuclear, algae and other not yet invented sources. When I envision America using renewables, I simply mean that we must use all the sources available and pool them together to produce a sensible energy grid for the whole US. Using geography and climate to a region's advantage instead of depending on coal to be shipped cross country or even using that coal if it's sensible for the region. I'm talking of course ideally, which is different from what I propose happen today: keep using coal.

I do not doubt we can supplement fossil fuels with renewables and we are, right now, providing some 3%. So my main argument is that someday fossil fuels will be a supplement to renewables instead of the other way around where fossil fuels only account for 10% or so of energy consumption. This is inevitable and necessary, this is my main argument and has thus far gone mostly unchallenged.

I want to be clear I know renewable companies are given money directly and not fossil fuels technically. However, it is naive to think fossil fuel companies don't benefit from various types of subsidies and that makes up a significant portion of their sales. There are about 7 ways subsidies can be dished out, I mean we read the same wikipedia page. Just because you are not being handed a check doesn't mean that fossil fuel industry is not benefiting from a subsidy. Are you playing me or yourself for a chump?

Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together and try to love one another, right now.

Very touching.

Unfortunately, what matters in the real world are "costs" which to folks on the far left is but an afterthought. Thankfully for the rest of us, costs do matter, thus, fossil fuels will continue to dominate for many decades.......its not even debatable.

It is rare that I venture into fantasyland,.......a perpetual condition for my AGW pals in here......but it would indeed be nice if government got the fuck out of the way and allowed the energy marketplace to be innovative and create energy that is far more efficient and can compete in the market against fossil fuels. But the market is rigged for the government to push the stoopidest nonsense idea of the 20th century: renewables. The EU is finally in the last couple of years coming around to the reality that sticking with renewables means their economies cant compete, thus, you are seeing places like Germany returning to coal big time ( plant of links in this thread ). The whole of China is nothing but a huge coal pit. Renewables being anything except fringe energy is a total fantasy........just off the hook thinking.......which also, by the way, is why the title of this thread is such a facial slam dunk AND why the consensus science isn't mattering in the real world. It is filed in the "IT IS WHAT IT IS" file.

Right now, we have the same dynamic that existed in the 1050's and 1940's in the car industry. You had the big 3 and anybody venturing into the competition area was squashed. BS renewables are protected because a lot of people have big bucks invested. Only the AGW nutters think that renewables are about helping the environment and that green energy is NOT a special interest.......as if Al Gore's intentions are noble. You cant take on real problems in the world when people have their heads up their asses and prefer to exist in the Land of MakeyUppey. It would be nice to see the AGW community come up with Plan B and advocate for an alternative........but does anybody see a smidge of evidence that this is happening?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it's awful that governments give money to poor people to buy energy.
They should give them solar panels instead.
That would cost more, always a liberal goal, while giving less benefit to the end user

First you don't believe subsidies exist and then you just hop skip and jump to bashing liberals. I'd recommend a new tune, or challenge yourself to do something you wouldn't normally do like ride a bike or go for a walk. Maybe you do already and I'm glad for you.

Yes, when liberals whine about oil companies getting subsidies and they post proof of poor people getting subsidies, I have to laugh.

 

[polarbear]

SOLAR POWER IS HERE TO STAY!!!! THE SUN WILL NEVER GO AWAY!!!!! (til 5 billion years but hey)

Then you must be talking about this kind of sun:

 

[flacaltenn]

Time for us warmers to write to the noaa and ask them to make up scientific and repeatable experiments on the greenhouse effect of co2.

They need to post a link to it within every paper, news report and article they make.

Nope... Wouldnt help.. Arguments AGAINST AGW have nothing to do with denying the GHouse.. It has to do with the LEAPS to conclusions, the hysterical headlines, the Magic Multiplers that turn a 1degC problem into a 6degC problem.. I will of course run up the whitemflag when all that ceases and a comprehensive Climate Model DOES show that those multipliers exist and that the climate system is as fragile as AGW claims that it is..

 

[flacaltenn]

Gnarlyone----

Youve made lots of assertions that are not capable of being defended... Foremost that your list of alternatives ARE TRULY alternatives.. With the exception of geothermal of course, which YOU LOVE and BLESS -- even tho its a dirty mining operation that uses FRACKING. You never answered as to how your principles can reconcile that..

Then you never answered why those futuristic GREENS in Germany are stuck building more and new coal plants if youve got a real solution for alternatives. Its a true fable in which your facts are wrong, but the script gets a rewrite..

As for your assertion of how much cheaper renewables are gonna be and how the world is gonna STORE solar energy so that a supermarket can finally be powered thru the night, I encourage you to COMMENT on THIS THREAD.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/323039-renewables-now-more-expensive-in-cali.html#post8110964


Because as you will see there, you havent even BEGUN to see the REAL costs of putting too much flaky renewable power on the grid.. How environmentally friendly are football field size buildings filled to the brim with battery waste? Adding $bills to the cost of what renewables Cali ALREADY has.. Or as PBear has shown us from Germany, tearing up complete pristine mountainsides to plumb them for a lossy water storage solution.

Spare me the Unicorns and drama --- and get a grip on realities. Your list of alternatives is history.. These things will only ever be peakers and unique to a few geographies for the foreseeable future.. Unless of course society collapses and doesnt require RELIABLE power anymore..

You seem also to ignore solutions that TODAY would address your concerns like 3rd gen nuclear and hydrogen fuel.. Thats what MY LIST of after fossil looks like.. And mine would work tomorrow AND solve most all of your concerns.. Those are TRUE alternatives....

 

[gnarlylove]

Tenn, you mistake, as you naturally do, my position for some easily debunked strawman. You tacitly refuse to acknowledge that fundamentally the world will come to depend on renewables and will slowly or rapidly reduce dependence on limited, nonrenewable resources. We will necessarily adapt to greener methods as they become discovered, available and cheaper.

So I keep asking why resist this change so persistently? I've continually suggested a broad approach following geography's lead and as time goes on technology can help make energy transfer more efficient and will also enable this excess energy to be distributed throughout the grid for more distant regions. I don't know why you don't think solar cannot be stored/captured for later use of distributed to further away regions.

Large Concentrating Solar Power plants create the thermal energy equivalent to conventional fossil fuel power plants. After the sun sets, CSP plants generate electricity from cost-effective thermal storage, providing 24-hour service to the power grid.

from Solar Energy and Energy Independence They go on to say there 10,000 square miles of solar could make California energy independent. I don't think we should necessarily fund and build this now but I think we should fund efficiency research so we can make this truly feasible. Perhaps integrating a global solar grid since the sun is always out somewhere may make sense as we learn more.

I don't know why you insist I offer EITHER 100% CLEAN energy OR NOTHING. I have repeated throughout this thread that I am not insisting on terminating fossil fuels and techniques overnight. I think there is the sensible way to approach these matters instead of "my way or the highway." Some methods are less damaging than others, more ethical than others, but we need to use the ones available to the region. If you have read every word of my posts you'd know am not trying to dismantle our current way of living. I'm suggesting appropriate change for real problems but undue political strife gets in the way, once again.

Mentioning nuclear and hydrogen is about the most sensible part of your post. Funny thing is I have consistently claimed nuclear as a solution despite its reputation. Hydrogen is not very well understood as an energy source and so you don't hear much about it. All the better if we develop effective ways for hydrogen energy but for now it's not nearly as far along as solar, wind and a few others. So let's remain feasible and concrete in our approach and not jump to solutions that are momentarily impossible.. That's the same stuff you accuse me of!!

But why focus on hydrogen and nuclear alone? It betrays a solution mentality to keep resisting the idea of various renewable energy sources will necessarily come to dominate the energy market SOMEDAY. Therefore I think it behooves us to push for research and subsidies for this inevitable future. I argue for this also on the basis of ethics: chemical, oil, fracking leaks have harm to humans (e.g. Ecuador children or air quality in Sublete County, WY) and wildlife as well as the almighty economiy (as evident in the Gulf). Fishing is just not like it use to be there.

This is not to confuse my approach with Obama's as "All of the Above" because I discourage 1000's of proposed fracking sites without independent, public surveys of sites and potential risks. It is simply trading problems which you disagree with me on and that is totally fine. But don't make me out to be a hypocrite when it's only you who characterizes my ideas as such.

Moreover, for some reason you anthropomorphize my view by telling me I have blessed certain renewables, which is completely distractive language. Wouldn't you agree? When did I hold the ceremony? Should I hire a planner? It's just not useful but I guess it helps you caricature my views as less valid/unscientific by tacit methodology.

Well, you're very convincing to your pals but don't trick me or yourself. As long as you claim to be an honest thinker, let's think honestly without sophistry. I mean if I played at your level I need to make a mockery out of fossil fuels. Like "Why did you bless the mass destruction of coastal life in the gulf?" Oh wait, you didn't? That's just me distracting from the simple matter that fossil fuels also help mankind...but if I didn't say that second part, it would seem like I'm just advertently ignoring information to gain a political upper hand. That is really poor thinking for such a smart dude.

 

[gnarlylove]

Once again I need to state I have nothing to comment about Germany. I do not live in Germany and wouldn't claim to know at all what makes up their decision making.

Why did we have slaves or kill people over petty crimes? Just because X happened doesn't make X the right thing to do. Sometimes it takes centuries to realize a certain demeanor or act was wrong or made with incomplete information. Just because Germany did what it did doesn't make it right, it just means they did it with what information was given. Unless you want to argue Germany is infallible, then there is no good reason to assume what Germany DOES is equivalent to what's ULTIMATELY RIGHT, ethical, beautiful, true or good. That is a fallacy, plain and simple.

 

[flacaltenn]

You dont HAVE a strawman. You dont even have a tiny straw stuffed unicorn.. What you DO have is horrendously bad reading material. Consisting of bad agiprop for ecofrauds..

Large Concentrating Solar Power plants create the thermal energy equivalent to conventional fossil fuel power plants. After the sun sets, CSP plants generate electricity from cost-effective thermal storage, providing 24-hour service to the power grid.
from Solar Energy and Energy Independence They go on to say there 10,000 square miles of solar could make California energy independent. I don't think we should necessarily fund and build this now but I think we should fund efficiency research so we can make this truly feasible. Perhaps integrating a global solar grid since the sun is always out somewhere may make sense as we learn more.

This iis wrong on so many levels, its disgusting. First off -- America has been " energy independent for its ELECTRICITY NEEDS for about 100 years. Unless you wnat to torture the definition of independent, I think were done with that misconception. Secondly, 10,000 sq miles of solar panels would NOT power California with PV panels for more than 6 hrs a day most days or 10 hrs a day with Solar towers and molten salt storage. You would still need another 10000 sq miles of battery storage and I sincerely doubt that they calculated correctly in the first place since 1MWatt of PV only produces at best 0.25MWatt of average power for the day..

You also fly off into Neverland with your Global solar Network. Because the sun is shining somewhere.. When you FIND better reading sources, we can chat. Because what you BELIEVE HERE is not supported at all by engineering or econnomics.

If you find better reading material, you would also know the MAJOR hydrogen infrastructure development
Is already underway and most Foreign auto manufacturers are putting larger emphasis on hydrogen electric vehicles.. This would actually be a PHENOMENAL good use of wind and solar OFF GRID to produce this fuel.. No storage required.. The fuel IS the storage..

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't like it that they spend so much time showing effect and not explaining the science of co2 = those effects.

The fact that I have to search google for experiments that get laughed at is kind of sad for something that is 95% likely to be occurring.

 

[skookerasbil]

IDK........I prefer to navigate in Realville. I believe there is a philosophy forum on this site someplace.


10 predictions for the world's energy future » News » OPB

 

[ScienceRocks]

I do wish they'd show why they change things to people.

Confusion is something the skeptics feed on.

 

[skookerasbil]

I do wish they'd show why they change things to people.

Confusion is something the skeptics feed on.

Damn straight........I feed on the daily barrage of confusion the climate k00ks like to convey. It is at the core of the agenda. Overwhelm the people.....throw as many bombs as possible. Link everything to climate change. Its what any good activist does......attack......attack......attack.

You see it on this forum.......hundreds of threads meant to sway the consensus.....all based upon a bunch of hooey.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way.......the whole CO2 causation crap is just that.......crap. Its the biggest BS scam the progressives ever invented. ( see GREEN AGENDA links above )




MYTH 4: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.


Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.


MYTH 5: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.


FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small.

But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

In summary, water vapour is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

What's next? A steam tax when you boil a kettle for your cup of tea?





I Love CO2: Top 15 Climate Myths

 

[skookerasbil]

Never fails that every time I post up this gem >>>

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]



I laugh my balls off.

 

[gnarlylove]

Energy independence simply meant not relying on fossil fuels. I wasn't aware how political sensitive you were to that term. You seem to be rubbed raw but all I meant was California is awash in enough sunlight to provide itself sufficient watts from solar alone. It may be larger than 10,000 square miles but as efficiency increases, it may be reduced to half that size. And a basic understanding in how technology develops tells us it will and it has since it was invented.

You can keep talking about unicorns and claiming how you doubt the accuracies of what someone else said. I was merely suggesting a precedence for the idea that solar can provide power to a whole state. Solar is not perfect but will undoubtedly improve and become a major ally in American energy, where appropriate. Why are you so hesitant to admit fossil fuels have serious problems? Or do you admit it has serious problems but resist change? These problems include ethical and environmental impacts as well as the problem of finitude which precludes indefinite use of this ethically and environmentally dubious product. Again, I'm not suggesting we cease this overnight. I am merely registering facts and wondering if you recognize them also.

 

[skookerasbil]

Energy independence simply meant not relying on fossil fuels. I wasn't aware how political sensitive you were to that term. You seem to be rubbed raw but all I meant was California is awash in enough sunlight to provide itself sufficient watts from solar alone. It may be larger than 10,000 square miles but as efficiency increases, it may be reduced to half that size. And a basic understanding in how technology develops tells us it will and it has since it was invented.

You can keep talking about unicorns and claiming how you doubt the accuracies of what someone else said. I was merely suggesting a precedence for the idea that solar can provide power to a whole state. Solar is not perfect but will undoubtedly improve and become a major ally in American energy, where appropriate. Why are you so hesitant to admit fossil fuels have serious problems? Or do you admit it has serious problems but resist change? These problems include ethical and environmental impacts as well as the problem of finitude which precludes indefinite use of this ethically and environmentally dubious product. Again, I'm not suggesting we cease this overnight. I am merely registering facts and wondering if you recognize them also.

Hey sweets, Im with ya.

In the end, its gotta be all about the costs.


Too.....the whole reliability factor is critical and never even mentioned by the AGW crowd. In early December, 23,000 wind turbines stood still and one million photovoltaic systems stopped work completely. For a whole week, coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 per cent of Germany’s electricity supply.


Maybe not a problem for the AGW climate crusaders but in the real world, its a pretty big fucking problem!!! Last time I checked, going green shouldn't mean you have to take the chance of being frozen stiff in sub-zero temperatures.


Wind Power: Germany?s Fatal Attraction ? STOP THESE THINGS




The green people never, never, ever tell you some of the potential problems with wind or solar.......as if there were no serious issues.

 

[flacaltenn]

Energy independence simply meant not relying on fossil fuels. I wasn't aware how political sensitive you were to that term. You seem to be rubbed raw but all I meant was California is awash in enough sunlight to provide itself sufficient watts from solar alone. It may be larger than 10,000 square miles but as efficiency increases, it may be reduced to half that size. And a basic understanding in how technology develops tells us it will and it has since it was invented.

You can keep talking about unicorns and claiming how you doubt the accuracies of what someone else said. I was merely suggesting a precedence for the idea that solar can provide power to a whole state. Solar is not perfect but will undoubtedly improve and become a major ally in American energy, where appropriate. Why are you so hesitant to admit fossil fuels have serious problems? Or do you admit it has serious problems but resist change? These problems include ethical and environmental impacts as well as the problem of finitude which precludes indefinite use of this ethically and environmentally dubious product. Again, I'm not suggesting we cease this overnight. I am merely registering facts and wondering if you recognize them also.

You're not getting the concept that its dark at night and SOLAR would only power California for 6 or 8 hrs a day.. Dont give a fruit HOW MUCH LAND you cover.. What causes this conceptual block of yours?

Show me a MAINSTREAM definition of energy independence that says crap about offing domestic coal and natural gas for electrical generation. Your crappy source of reading material doesnt get a pass to change the meanings of common phrases..

Solar is an OLD tecnology. Panels are now a commodity item.. I wouldnt be betting the farm on miracles at this point. What you NEED is less weather and longer days...

You got to catch me in a looser mood to get philosophical about how evil what we have is ---when what we can imagine is obviously always so much better.. Thats usually allowed in education until you hit Middle School, then you get asked to temper your imagination with stuff youve actually learned..

 

[westwall]

I don't like it that they spend so much time showing effect and not explaining the science of co2 = those effects.

The fact that I have to search google for experiments that get laughed at is kind of sad for something that is 95% likely to be occurring.

To date the AGW crowd has never once even attempted to show, in the lab, how a miniscule increase in CO2 would do all that they say. It can be done, it would be expensive, they'd actually have to do some real work (which, IMO is why they havn't done it yet)...oh, and the fact that they know it wouldn't do what they claim of course....that's kind of a biggie too!