TheMadCap

I am not about to go into this over and over again, but it is true that this issue has become, unfortunately, a political issue rather than one of pure science. I have no doubt OC that the article you quoted (mocked) was written by someone with a political agenda, and I have no desire nor the energy to read it. I'd rather talk to my colleagues in this field who are doing the actual research, and my own former research on this topic. That being said, here is the real bottom line (stated by me for at least the 7th or 8th time): There is no way to prove, no empirical evidence that supports, anthropogenic inputs to Earths atmosphere in the form of so called Greenhouse gases and other pollutants have any effect on global mean temperatures. Now, that being said, the corollary is also true. There is no evidence that proves anthropogenic does NOT have an effect on global temperatures. Before either side brands me a heretic, let me explain. We simply have not been studying this long enough to tell. We just haven't, we don't have the data either way to prove one way or the other which is true. However, it is incontrovertible that reducing anthropogenic inputs are in our long term best interest, provided we do so in an Economically feasible way. OC, I did not read the article, so I can only guess at the claims based on your points. Here is what I can tell you, in actual scientific truth, and I allow you and everyone else to come to your own conclusions. 1. CO2, Methane, water vapor, etc (so called greenhouse gases) will absorb in the infrared spectrum, which is another way of saying they heat up. Putting more into the atmosphere Would cause heating of the atmosphere if we didn't have elimination mechanisms like 2. Carbonate system - the ocean is in fact, thought to be a sink or repository for excess atmospheric CO2. What we don't know is how much it can handle and what the final environmental fate of the bound carbon is. I don't have the energy to explain the carbonate system, anyone who is interested can find this in any atmospheric chemistry or general chem book. Look up carbonate system, pH, environmental fate, thermohaline circulation etc. 3. Pollutant substances are classified as such based on WHERE they are located. For example, one would not normally consider water vapor to be a "pollutant", but when it is in the atmosphere, it can be characterized as such, since it causes an environmental impact (see item 1) above. Another example is ozone,which is beneficial in the upper atmosphere but classified as a pollutant at near the Earths surface. Pollutants like NOx, sulfer, and other ejecta from a volcanic eruption, not to mention water vapor and dust particles, do cause Temporary cooling of the atmosphere, as they block out, once again, infrared radiation from the sun. Put another way, sunlight is blocked from reaching the planet. This is why you will hear that clouds also cause cooling, they reflect sunlight. Now there are natural elimination mechanisms the Earth has for getting rid of this type of pollutants, namely wind and rainwater. Again, overtaxing this elimination mechanism is not in our best interest. In short, we know much about how our planet functions, but we are adding a new variable into the equation that is nearly unknown: us. We just don't know yet how much, if any, we are truly affecting earths chemistry. What we do know is that we should responsibly manage our inputs and influences. That's it, I am officially done with this subject. Let the politics continue on, I have no input on that issue...

I suggest you all listen, closely, to Fillmore East or some of the more recently released live recordings from SUNY Stoneybrook and reevaluate your contention that Duanne Allman was "just another non-original southern rock guitar player"...

not that this adds anything to the conversation, but all I can think of when I heard this is George and Jerry's PE teacher: "Cantstandya, Cantstandya"!

You misunderstand. I don't give a **** about the Tea Party. I don't give a **** about The DNC. I loathe the GOP. My point is that you do yourself no credit by using derogatory names to make your point. To do otherwise makes you as bad as those who use demeaning labels to those on the left as well. For the record, I find the use of "libtard" equally dumb...

There's no way. No one laughs at Americas being murdered by terrorists. I can see being one sided on politics, hell, my father in law would vote for a democrat that got on stage and stomped out a litter of puppies. He's trolling, and adds nothing at all to this place. He is the first poster in over ten years I would support a permanent vacation for...

I can't figure it out. They just keep going and going. This guy is so obviously just posting bull **** to piss people off, it's not even good trolling...

I have never heard one Libertarian that has spoken in favor of this, it goes against everything thier party stands for. One of the reasons I feel they have chosen thier party name poorly. Too easy to confuse it with Liberals... This is true, it is amazing how stupid most people in this country are...

stop talking to it...

Can we stop with the derogetory descriptions and name calling? Teabaggers? Really? This is not helping your point and sounds incredible stupid. It cheapens any argument you attempt...

IMO, this is going to torpedo Hillary in 2016. Any smart candidate from the opposition would do well to just keep hammering her on this subject. Is this really the person you want leading your country?

You don't have to register to check plan costs in your area...

just for fun, I went to healthcare.gov to see the available plans in my area. I put in the following info when prompted: State, County, coverage for Health only, 2 adults, 2 children My plans ranged from $294.66 upwards of $4400 (I stopped after page 2, as they became more ridiculous). My income level does not qualify for a subsidy. the least expensive plan ($294.66 for Catastrophic insurance) does not come close to what I have now. I currently pay $273.92 for an 80/20 coinsurance plan for the four of us. The next least expensive plan offered on teh exchange is an Anthem BCBS HMO for $466.06 for catastrophic coverage. Note that the website informs you that catastrophic insurance plans cover LESS than 60% of costs. For extra fun, I answered the questions as if I were my Father-in-Law, Mr. "We have to stop these evil Republicans" in NJ. His premium for catastrophic insurance for him and the MIL was over 500 bucks a month! What were some costs in your area? Also include if you meet the requirement for gov subsidized premiums...

Morality is only important if you have an "R" after your name...

Healthcare.gov will be fixed by November. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/25/zients-update-healthcaregov-website/3187867/

I'm gonna chop this mfn desk in half! Can't wait for thanksgiving this year to hear from my F-in-L about how this is all the GOP's fault. Oh joy!

Not sure why you guys bother. You know he's just trolling, which, I would imagine, takes all the fun out of batting him around...

Oh brother. Defense? Dems? libs? Anyone?

I would have done the same thing if it were me, and gladly been arrested to save my child. The cops were correct, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in a residential area, no matter what VP Boob has to say on the matter. Btw, I remember the "just buy a shotgun" part, did he advocate firing into the air?

Yikes! That's brutal!

I think it's BS he didn't know there were issues, god, how could he not? I will be the first one to give him credit for positives, he was president when bin Laden was killed, he gets a point for that. He caught that lady, there's another point. I had so hoped he was what he said he was when he was elected. No one wished for him to be the most successful president in history more than I did. But he's showed himself to be sooooo incompetent. He's the John Spanos of Presidents. When he makes love to his wife he has to be on the bottom, cause all he can do is !@#$ up....

Current headline on USATODAY: "IT Glitches may Tarnish Obama's Legacy" yeah, glitches. Not Benghazi, or Syria, or FnF, or any other "phoney scandal". Glitches.... http://www.usatoday....alysis/3151757/

God, I hated Leonard after this fight. Looking back now, I can see how smart he was actually. He ran, ran, ran all night, and his little ineffectual flurries at the end of the round gave the perception that he won rounds. Watch that fight with no sound (turn of the commentators) and do your own scoring of blows landed and you will see just how bad the judges were that night. Was it Letterman that had it 118-110 or some other preposterous score?

Hey, Hey, Hey! Didn't you see him sweep in and catch that poor woman fainting? All kidding aside, nice catch Obama!

Lol! Good job!

Well of course it's their fault, they haven't done a single thing to fix it!