If it's your home that is being lost to the sea wonder if you'd feel different.
I will agree though, the debate even among scientists isn't even over so how can anyone say that we really understand the cause of global warming fully.
We should all do our part to act like it could be a major issue & WILLINGLY make changes to our lives & businesses to help be more "green". I absolutely don't believe the government should be forcing people to do anything, instead why don't they try giving worthwhile incentives to companies who get on board with green?
My personal opinion is because the greenies are just as power hungry as the corporations & they don't want to have to debate the issue or come to a consensus, they just want to force their views on everyone.
No, I wouldn't feel different if it was my home that was "lost at sea." Lets ignore the fact that there's no way my home is going to be standing long enough to get to the point where the 1/2' to 1' rise every 100 years is going to be the determining factor. It's a slow, slow, slow process thus giving us ample time to respond (as humans have been doing for 20,000 years).
We seem to be on the same page tho - if you're going to make drastic changes that actually have some negative results you better be 100% sure about them rather than having a split amongst scientists (there was a link in the other thread to a memo presented before congress of 700 well decorated scientists who either think "climate change" is a farce or it's still not nearly well understood enough for us to have any idea if we can have any real impact. Put me in the latter camp).
What I find more distrubing is that it seems like every non-American that posts (excuse my comment if you're out of country) 100% fully accepts "the reality of the situation" and thinks Americans are dumb for questioning it. But then again that's the main reason we became a country in the first place - we don't just accept the status-quo without evidence/reason to support it.
Correction, is because our entire government is in the pocket of special interests. Bush didn't do all this on his own. Doesn't do our country any good to blind ourselves by passing the blame around from individual to individual, we need to see the full picture & understand that the corruption is rooted deep in all of our government branches. It's even making it's way into our judicial system!
I was actually referencing where Bush fought for the EPA's right to manage certain aspects of the environmental impact which then went to the Supreme Court which said, well, that the EPA is allowed to restrict CO2 as well. Of course it doesn't come back to 1 man but Bush still plays a pretty significant part in why the EPA has the powers they do.
No, I wouldn't feel different if it was my home that was "lost at sea." Lets ignore the fact that there's no way my home is going to be standing long enough to get to the point where the 1/2' to 1' rise every 100 years is going to be the determining factor. It's a slow, slow, slow process thus giving us ample time to respond (as humans have been doing for 20,000 years).
We seem to be on the same page tho - if you're going to make drastic changes that actually have some negative results you better be 100% sure about them rather than having a split amongst scientists (there was a link in the other thread to a memo presented before congress of 700 well decorated scientists who either think "climate change" is a farce or it's still not nearly well understood enough for us to have any idea if we can have any real impact. Put me in the latter camp).
What I find more distrubing is that it seems like every non-American that posts (excuse my comment if you're out of country) 100% fully accepts "the reality of the situation" and thinks Americans are dumb for questioning it. But then again that's the main reason we became a country in the first place - we don't just accept the status-quo without evidence/reason to support it.
Yup, on the same page. For me personally I have no desire to live anywhere near the coast, too crowded for my liking. I'm just fine with visiting the beech & not living there.
Part of the reason I think a lot of Europeans are on the side of global warming scientists is also in part a resentment for Americans who have enjoyed such prosperity & typically scoff at the European world that has been largely led by socialized governments. Just about every Western European country at some point in time has dabbled in marxism, where as America has always stood strong for the idea that the people should rule their own fate & not the elite few.
Who knows, could also be skewed by other factors. We may never know. I'm not really concerned with them calling us stupid Americans, helps them to ignore our arguments rather than actually having to process them.
I was actually referencing where Bush fought for the EPA's right to manage certain aspects of the environmental impact which then went to the Supreme Court which said, well, that the EPA is allowed to restrict CO2 as well. Of course it doesn't come back to 1 man but Bush still plays a pretty significant part in why the EPA has the powers they do.
Hey, I'm in agreement that Bush dropped the ball on a lot of major things. I just am way over the Bush bashing, ready for my country to move on & stop blaming him for everything.
Getting 100% technical here - water vapor is the very definition of a greenhouse gas. Whether or not it has an impact is beside the point - the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas puts your entire argument into a tailspin.
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
Your lack of scientific knowledge is most evident here.
1.) You jump to a most unscientific conclusion here, ". . . the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas . . ." I never said water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, I just said, don't get me started on it. (BTW, getting technical here - water is a liquid, water vapor is a gas.)
2) Also getting technical here - Pointing out that water vapor functions as a greenhouse gas in an effort to dismiss the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is ridiculous since our planet is awash in water and the content of water vapor in our atmosphere is limited by its saturation point and stays essentially constant, whereas CO2 has no such limit, is rising, and is therefore the object of concern.
But you have further demonstrated my point that people like you making "scientific arguments" without actual "scientific knowledge" all for political reasons, is ridiculous. Thanks.
I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.
Please, don't be a lemming and follow the fanatic ditto heads off the cliff. Socialism is not a scary word. It is not the Commi-Red Marxist boogeyman you fear. A little more of socialism in the US won't hurt.
Quote:
By the way, Apple is a rare company these days that's thriving in a horrendous recession. It's easy for Apple to smugly talk about all its investments in green tech, when the money is rolling in and it's sitting on a vast wad of cash. I wonder: if Apple were in the financial state that it was in the mid-90s--ie, barely hanging on--would it have been quite so committed to all these expensive green efforts? I doubt it.
Oh and if Ted Williams' head was not cut off, he would still be able to hit .400.
What kind of logic is that?! You are knocking them for doing something positive when they have the resources to do it, simply because they can?
Your lack of scientific knowledge is most evident here.
1.) You jump to a most unscientific conclusion here, ". . . the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas . . ." I never said water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, I just said, don't get me started on it. (BTW, getting technical here - water is a liquid, water vapor is a gas.)
2) Also getting technical here - Pointing out that water vapor functions as a greenhouse gas in an effort to dismiss the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is ridiculous since our planet is awash in water and the content of water vapor in our atmosphere is limited by its saturation point and stays essentially constant, whereas CO2 has no such limit, is rising, and is therefore the object of concern.
But you have further demonstrated my point that people like you making "scientific arguments" without actual "scientific knowledge" all for political reasons, is ridiculous. Thanks.
1) When did I ever say water was a gas?
2) My lack of scientific knowledge if obvious because I read your first sentence and thought it funny? Interesting argument
3) CO2 has risen before without any contribution from humans burning fossil fuels and should humans ever cease to exist on this planet it will happen again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...ide_400kyr.png Please also note that the temperatures during those previous spikes are higher than they are today despite the massive difference in CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ (resources are at the bottom if you care to check)
4) I never said dismissing it because of water vapor was a good idea - I just found it funny that you completely ignored it - and you're still proving my point.
5) Where, exactly, in my post did I make a political point? Please, do tell. It seems as tho your defense against anyone who points out any fallacy in your argument must have a political point despite any scientific evidence they do or don't have - I'm not too sure that holds water (pun intended )
Hey, I'm in agreement that Bush dropped the ball on a lot of major things. I just am way over the Bush bashing, ready for my country to move on & stop blaming him for everything.
I wasn't really meaning to come across as Bush-bashing. I think all presidents can be blamed for stuff and every time the presidency changes parties people are going to blame anything and everything negative on the previous guy. I just thought it was funny that Bush was trying to prevent legislation restricting CO2 regulation by giving more power to the EPA and now the EPA is going to do it without regard to Congress or the people. Yay big gov't?
Oh and if Ted Williams' head was not cut off, he would still be able to hit .400.
What kind of logic is that?! You are knocking them for doing something positive when they have the resources to do it, simply because they can?
He might be reaching a little bit but there's a pretty good corollary there between current Apple and the US and 90's Apple and the 3rd world. We're all about it because we've got the resources to do it but you were a citizen of the 3rd world country that can't even afford clean water how concerned would you be about using a more expensive solar plant than something that burns coal or oil for electricity?
Again, he might be reaching a little but it's still a defendable point I think.
...as in case any may not have been aware, the whole world has been in the process of recovering from the latest ice age...
Though we were in an ice age 10000 years ago, the world has in fact been COOLING over the past 2000 years, as evidenced by this article in the journal Science. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your simplistic caricatures of geologic history are not correct.
Part of the reason I think a lot of Europeans are on the side of global warming scientists is also in part a resentment for Americans who have enjoyed such prosperity & typically scoff at the European world that has been largely led by socialized governments.
Quote:
What I find more distrubing is that it seems like every non-American that posts (excuse my comment if you're out of country) 100% fully accepts "the reality of the situation" and thinks Americans are dumb for questioning it.
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
I wasn't really meaning to come across as Bush-bashing. I think all presidents can be blamed for stuff and every time the presidency changes parties people are going to blame anything and everything negative on the previous guy. I just thought it was funny that Bush was trying to prevent legislation restricting CO2 regulation by giving more power to the EPA and now the EPA is going to do it without regard to Congress or the people. Yay big gov't?
I get what you're saying. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. It all makes my head hurt.
RE: water vapor, my mistake -- I misread "water vapor" as water.
The rest still stands. As I stated, the water vapor contribution to global warming is fixed whereas the CO2 contribution is not. So water vapor simply factors itself out of the equation. Anyone remotely informed on the subject understands this.
The recent relative preponderance of (anthropogenic) condensation nuclei in the atmosphere and its effect on condensation and cloud formation (solar dimming) however is a huge factor that has so far masked the true effects of CO2 on global warming. Scientists are only starting to take this into consideration (Initially global warming deniers tried to spin this as rebuttal of global warming--true guile.) The ridiculously optimistic 1/2 foot per century rise in sea level you mentioned above is a hopeful fantasy.
I don't claim you're the worst poster on this board, but,
Raising the fake idea that water vapor is relevant to the issue is is "political."
Pretending that you raised the issue because you "thought it was funny" is "political."
Your lack of interest in countries that will be destroyed by a rise in sea level is "political."
Your obvious disregard for inconvenient scientific consensus is "political."
Pretty much everything you have posted is "political" (but not much is factual.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
1) When did I ever say water was a gas?
2) My lack of scientific knowledge if obvious because I read your first sentence and thought it funny? Interesting argument
3) CO2 has risen before without any contribution from humans burning fossil fuels and should humans ever cease to exist on this planet it will happen again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...ide_400kyr.png Please also note that the temperatures during those previous spikes are higher than they are today despite the massive difference in CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ (resources are at the bottom if you care to check)
4) I never said dismissing it because of water vapor was a good idea - I just found it funny that you completely ignored it - and you're still proving my point.
5) Where, exactly, in my post did I make a political point? Please, do tell. It seems as tho your defense against anyone who points out any fallacy in your argument must have a political point despite any scientific evidence they do or don't have - I'm not too sure that holds water (pun intended )
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
You're still not addressing the facts (or lack thereof) to back up why there's a difference between the US and the EU. Does the EU not get access to the data that supports the dissenters of man-made climate change theory? Do they not care? What's up with that?
Yes, you still see Boycott France bumper stickers and I still see idiotic bumper stickers on the other side - that doesn't mean the scientific results either side presents is void because of that.
Comments
If it's your home that is being lost to the sea wonder if you'd feel different.
I will agree though, the debate even among scientists isn't even over so how can anyone say that we really understand the cause of global warming fully.
We should all do our part to act like it could be a major issue & WILLINGLY make changes to our lives & businesses to help be more "green". I absolutely don't believe the government should be forcing people to do anything, instead why don't they try giving worthwhile incentives to companies who get on board with green?
My personal opinion is because the greenies are just as power hungry as the corporations & they don't want to have to debate the issue or come to a consensus, they just want to force their views on everyone.
No, I wouldn't feel different if it was my home that was "lost at sea." Lets ignore the fact that there's no way my home is going to be standing long enough to get to the point where the 1/2' to 1' rise every 100 years is going to be the determining factor. It's a slow, slow, slow process thus giving us ample time to respond (as humans have been doing for 20,000 years).
We seem to be on the same page tho - if you're going to make drastic changes that actually have some negative results you better be 100% sure about them rather than having a split amongst scientists (there was a link in the other thread to a memo presented before congress of 700 well decorated scientists who either think "climate change" is a farce or it's still not nearly well understood enough for us to have any idea if we can have any real impact. Put me in the latter camp).
What I find more distrubing is that it seems like every non-American that posts (excuse my comment if you're out of country) 100% fully accepts "the reality of the situation" and thinks Americans are dumb for questioning it. But then again that's the main reason we became a country in the first place - we don't just accept the status-quo without evidence/reason to support it.
Correction, is because our entire government is in the pocket of special interests. Bush didn't do all this on his own. Doesn't do our country any good to blind ourselves by passing the blame around from individual to individual, we need to see the full picture & understand that the corruption is rooted deep in all of our government branches. It's even making it's way into our judicial system!
I was actually referencing where Bush fought for the EPA's right to manage certain aspects of the environmental impact which then went to the Supreme Court which said, well, that the EPA is allowed to restrict CO2 as well. Of course it doesn't come back to 1 man but Bush still plays a pretty significant part in why the EPA has the powers they do.
I'm pretty sure that in the long term, abolishment of slavery and pushing equal rights has earned business a lot more than it has cost.
Bingo!
No, I wouldn't feel different if it was my home that was "lost at sea." Lets ignore the fact that there's no way my home is going to be standing long enough to get to the point where the 1/2' to 1' rise every 100 years is going to be the determining factor. It's a slow, slow, slow process thus giving us ample time to respond (as humans have been doing for 20,000 years).
We seem to be on the same page tho - if you're going to make drastic changes that actually have some negative results you better be 100% sure about them rather than having a split amongst scientists (there was a link in the other thread to a memo presented before congress of 700 well decorated scientists who either think "climate change" is a farce or it's still not nearly well understood enough for us to have any idea if we can have any real impact. Put me in the latter camp).
What I find more distrubing is that it seems like every non-American that posts (excuse my comment if you're out of country) 100% fully accepts "the reality of the situation" and thinks Americans are dumb for questioning it. But then again that's the main reason we became a country in the first place - we don't just accept the status-quo without evidence/reason to support it.
Yup, on the same page. For me personally I have no desire to live anywhere near the coast, too crowded for my liking. I'm just fine with visiting the beech & not living there.
Part of the reason I think a lot of Europeans are on the side of global warming scientists is also in part a resentment for Americans who have enjoyed such prosperity & typically scoff at the European world that has been largely led by socialized governments. Just about every Western European country at some point in time has dabbled in marxism, where as America has always stood strong for the idea that the people should rule their own fate & not the elite few.
Who knows, could also be skewed by other factors. We may never know. I'm not really concerned with them calling us stupid Americans, helps them to ignore our arguments rather than actually having to process them.
I was actually referencing where Bush fought for the EPA's right to manage certain aspects of the environmental impact which then went to the Supreme Court which said, well, that the EPA is allowed to restrict CO2 as well. Of course it doesn't come back to 1 man but Bush still plays a pretty significant part in why the EPA has the powers they do.
Hey, I'm in agreement that Bush dropped the ball on a lot of major things. I just am way over the Bush bashing, ready for my country to move on & stop blaming him for everything.
NO Unelected Officials, Agencies or Arrogant A-holes should set public policy - Much Less Institute Laws.
Getting 100% technical here - water vapor is the very definition of a greenhouse gas. Whether or not it has an impact is beside the point - the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas puts your entire argument into a tailspin.
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Your lack of scientific knowledge is most evident here.
1.) You jump to a most unscientific conclusion here, ". . . the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas . . ." I never said water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, I just said, don't get me started on it. (BTW, getting technical here - water is a liquid, water vapor is a gas.)
2) Also getting technical here - Pointing out that water vapor functions as a greenhouse gas in an effort to dismiss the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is ridiculous since our planet is awash in water and the content of water vapor in our atmosphere is limited by its saturation point and stays essentially constant, whereas CO2 has no such limit, is rising, and is therefore the object of concern.
But you have further demonstrated my point that people like you making "scientific arguments" without actual "scientific knowledge" all for political reasons, is ridiculous. Thanks.
Doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, green or purple,
NO Unelected Officials, Agencies or Arrogant A-holes should set public policy - Much Less Institute Laws.
Ha! Definitely agree with A-holes.
I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.
Please, don't be a lemming and follow the fanatic ditto heads off the cliff. Socialism is not a scary word. It is not the Commi-Red Marxist boogeyman you fear. A little more of socialism in the US won't hurt.
By the way, Apple is a rare company these days that's thriving in a horrendous recession. It's easy for Apple to smugly talk about all its investments in green tech, when the money is rolling in and it's sitting on a vast wad of cash. I wonder: if Apple were in the financial state that it was in the mid-90s--ie, barely hanging on--would it have been quite so committed to all these expensive green efforts? I doubt it.
Oh and if Ted Williams' head was not cut off, he would still be able to hit .400.
What kind of logic is that?! You are knocking them for doing something positive when they have the resources to do it, simply because they can?
Your lack of scientific knowledge is most evident here.
1.) You jump to a most unscientific conclusion here, ". . . the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas . . ." I never said water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, I just said, don't get me started on it. (BTW, getting technical here - water is a liquid, water vapor is a gas.)
2) Also getting technical here - Pointing out that water vapor functions as a greenhouse gas in an effort to dismiss the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is ridiculous since our planet is awash in water and the content of water vapor in our atmosphere is limited by its saturation point and stays essentially constant, whereas CO2 has no such limit, is rising, and is therefore the object of concern.
But you have further demonstrated my point that people like you making "scientific arguments" without actual "scientific knowledge" all for political reasons, is ridiculous. Thanks.
1) When did I ever say water was a gas?
2) My lack of scientific knowledge if obvious because I read your first sentence and thought it funny? Interesting argument
3) CO2 has risen before without any contribution from humans burning fossil fuels and should humans ever cease to exist on this planet it will happen again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...ide_400kyr.png Please also note that the temperatures during those previous spikes are higher than they are today despite the massive difference in CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ (resources are at the bottom if you care to check)
4) I never said dismissing it because of water vapor was a good idea - I just found it funny that you completely ignored it - and you're still proving my point.
5) Where, exactly, in my post did I make a political point? Please, do tell. It seems as tho your defense against anyone who points out any fallacy in your argument must have a political point despite any scientific evidence they do or don't have - I'm not too sure that holds water (pun intended
Hey, I'm in agreement that Bush dropped the ball on a lot of major things. I just am way over the Bush bashing, ready for my country to move on & stop blaming him for everything.
I wasn't really meaning to come across as Bush-bashing. I think all presidents can be blamed for stuff and every time the presidency changes parties people are going to blame anything and everything negative on the previous guy. I just thought it was funny that Bush was trying to prevent legislation restricting CO2 regulation by giving more power to the EPA and now the EPA is going to do it without regard to Congress or the people. Yay big gov't?
Oh and if Ted Williams' head was not cut off, he would still be able to hit .400.
What kind of logic is that?! You are knocking them for doing something positive when they have the resources to do it, simply because they can?
He might be reaching a little bit but there's a pretty good corollary there between current Apple and the US and 90's Apple and the 3rd world. We're all about it because we've got the resources to do it but you were a citizen of the 3rd world country that can't even afford clean water how concerned would you be about using a more expensive solar plant than something that burns coal or oil for electricity?
Again, he might be reaching a little but it's still a defendable point I think.
...as in case any may not have been aware, the whole world has been in the process of recovering from the latest ice age...
Though we were in an ice age 10000 years ago, the world has in fact been COOLING over the past 2000 years, as evidenced by this article in the journal Science. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your simplistic caricatures of geologic history are not correct.
hey pws, you go tell this to the flooded people in India ?
So the floods in 1897, 1910, 111 and 1915 were because of fossil fuel use?
So the floods in 1897, 1910, 111 and 1915 were because of fossil fuel use?
Also, the book of Genesis has a pretty accurate account of what happens when there's too much fossil fuel use
Part of the reason I think a lot of Europeans are on the side of global warming scientists is also in part a resentment for Americans who have enjoyed such prosperity & typically scoff at the European world that has been largely led by socialized governments.
What I find more distrubing is that it seems like every non-American that posts (excuse my comment if you're out of country) 100% fully accepts "the reality of the situation" and thinks Americans are dumb for questioning it.
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
I wasn't really meaning to come across as Bush-bashing. I think all presidents can be blamed for stuff and every time the presidency changes parties people are going to blame anything and everything negative on the previous guy. I just thought it was funny that Bush was trying to prevent legislation restricting CO2 regulation by giving more power to the EPA and now the EPA is going to do it without regard to Congress or the people. Yay big gov't?
I get what you're saying. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. It all makes my head hurt.
The rest still stands. As I stated, the water vapor contribution to global warming is fixed whereas the CO2 contribution is not. So water vapor simply factors itself out of the equation. Anyone remotely informed on the subject understands this.
The recent relative preponderance of (anthropogenic) condensation nuclei in the atmosphere and its effect on condensation and cloud formation (solar dimming) however is a huge factor that has so far masked the true effects of CO2 on global warming. Scientists are only starting to take this into consideration (Initially global warming deniers tried to spin this as rebuttal of global warming--true guile.) The ridiculously optimistic 1/2 foot per century rise in sea level you mentioned above is a hopeful fantasy.
I don't claim you're the worst poster on this board, but,
Raising the fake idea that water vapor is relevant to the issue is is "political."
Pretending that you raised the issue because you "thought it was funny" is "political."
Your lack of interest in countries that will be destroyed by a rise in sea level is "political."
Your obvious disregard for inconvenient scientific consensus is "political."
Pretty much everything you have posted is "political" (but not much is factual.)
1) When did I ever say water was a gas?
2) My lack of scientific knowledge if obvious because I read your first sentence and thought it funny? Interesting argument
3) CO2 has risen before without any contribution from humans burning fossil fuels and should humans ever cease to exist on this planet it will happen again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...ide_400kyr.png Please also note that the temperatures during those previous spikes are higher than they are today despite the massive difference in CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ (resources are at the bottom if you care to check)
4) I never said dismissing it because of water vapor was a good idea - I just found it funny that you completely ignored it - and you're still proving my point.
5) Where, exactly, in my post did I make a political point? Please, do tell. It seems as tho your defense against anyone who points out any fallacy in your argument must have a political point despite any scientific evidence they do or don't have - I'm not too sure that holds water (pun intended
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
You're still not addressing the facts (or lack thereof) to back up why there's a difference between the US and the EU. Does the EU not get access to the data that supports the dissenters of man-made climate change theory? Do they not care? What's up with that?
Yes, you still see Boycott France bumper stickers and I still see idiotic bumper stickers on the other side - that doesn't mean the scientific results either side presents is void because of that.