as more states reject the economic suicide of Green Socialism, and as the federal Republican party melts down into goo at the prospect of actually having to do something... a constitutional convention becomes more and more likely

The EPA recommends you all stop breathing. Effective immediately.

Yah, I mean 8 billion people on the earth, you think we just couldn't start breathing shallow or something.

Let's all hyperventalate and show those EPA bastards a lesson!

And if your going to say 12 states, at least list the state names.  I want to know if my state is wasting MY TAX MONEY on this crap.

Well that's like saying, Human involvement isn't part of the equation.  Of course we're part of the equation, though politicians are argueing what exact, and i mean exact, percentage of involvement we're part of.

Indeed! Factories, cars and combustion don't exist, they're just odd looking people!

OOohhhhh so we go from saying

"omg looky the hockey stick, there is no doubt humans are responsible because nothing in the physical universe can cause this"

To

"Its certainly not been proved that is beyond probability that if human emissions had some effect on climate, by some undiscovered process, that it might not function much as climate has behaved over the past decade"

Whatever, gtfo of my wallet

We need to have nightly torchlight processions and bonfires to protest CO2 regulation

As far as I know the glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and there is no food in africa

> Einstein wrote:

> There is five times more scientists against global warming than for it.

Find the thread on it and my posts for links to the truth.

and yesterday 10 out of 11 computers from a weatherpredictionstation predicted it would rain today. 1 said sun and today it's sunny.

strange huh. according to your theory: it's 10 vs 1 on rain today. so it can't possibly not rain today.

scientists are ppl and they make mistakes too. in fact most famous scientists of the past were seen as mistaken when they made a discovery other ppl didn't like:

the earth is round, the universe doesn't revolve around the sun, etc.

the arguments for the climate is changing:
tests on icelayers in north pole
slowing down currents in sea
stronger winters, warmer summers
migrating animals

argumants against:
for every "scientist" that believes in change, there are 5 that don't?

I'm not saying it's 100% sure that humans are for most part responsible, I'm not saying these climate changings is an alonestanding event;
but declaring: it's all a hoax while changes are happening all around you is just being blind.

So you know,  though this forum does not, despite mistakes in the past I am now a recognized math scientist in a subset of statistics for my final compression system which was vetted by peers as new, unique, and capable.

As a scientist I can tell you the IPCC ignored evidence,  altered evidence and failed to detect hundreds of other things that modify our atmosphere.

Their first versions was so flawed that merely planting tree's would have corrected their supposed imbalance.

But they persisted via censoring opposing views via all means possible.

They did it for money, politicians joined for votes and power, and the ignorant joined because they were told to be scared.

Just one website invalidates them

Htttp://www.surfacestations.org

83%+ of the US Weather Stations are improperly placed and their bad info is why these scientists still try to challenge natural variability.

I think there's honestly a balanced approach we can take...

I'm not 100% sure about the question of CO2-induced global warming, to be honest, which most statistics have tended to focus upon.  Assuming CO2-induced global warming is true, as a reminder, the solutions include various methods to reduce output from energy sources and industrial processes. 

Consider that.  Flint probably would agree that we need to utilize alternative energy sources (though his justification, as well as mine, probably focuses much more on security and economic matters than environmental).  Thus, regardless of the question of whether global warming is true, mutual understanding can be reached toward reducing CO2 emissions.

Then there's methane emissions.  Methane is primarily produced by agricultural processes (manure from cattle is a big issue, although other forms of biological degeneration, such as human waste, can create the problem).  Now as bad as CO2 is, methane is probably a worse pollutant for global warming because it creates much harsher environmental reactions in the short term.  Biology might be able to adapt to a slow growth in temperatures, but oscillations in temperatures are extremely difficult to deal with.

How do we reach a conclusion about this?  Both Republicans and Democrats want clean water.  Animal waste from agriculture has been known to leak into rivers, especially in the US Midwest.  Human waste has caused similar problems in rivers, polluting drinking and agricultural waters.  Both parties know this, and have taken steps to alleviate this.

That's the inherent problem.  The debate is focused too much on the causes, and not the solutions.  Now I'm not saying we should try and fix global warming even if it doesn't exist.  Rather, my argument is that if advocates of fighting global warming were to step back and attempt to sell policies that didn't rely on solving global warming as their justification to pass, there would be much more bipartisanship seen.

Debate smarter, not harder.

As a test, Flint, answer this:  Would you be against either of the following policies:

Increasing incentives for research and development of alternative energy sources.
Increasing subsidies for animal farms to reprocess animal waste to reduce methane emissions (remember anerobic digesters?  That's a possibility).
Funding the creation of containment facilities for excess biological waste which can't be absorbed by the envioronment.

Except that funding creation of things is how we ended up with NASA, how Britain came up with synthetic sugars, and how hundreds of other important technologies which would have otherwise not have been created due to lack of demand at the time, were developed.

Not true in the case of technology development.  Take prescription drugs, for example.  The first pill costs $10 billion to create.  Every pill beyond that generally runs at only a couple dollars.  If subsidized, the cost to create that medicine is absorbed as a loss by the government, allowing new firms to enter the market at dirt cheap prices (not that I'm necessarily in favor of this specific instance... but it does help illustrate the point as an economic model).