K-9

Ah yes, carbon dioxide. I'm surprised it isn't a noble gas all by itself. It's gotten such a bad rap. I mean just a few short years ago, the coal industry was actually publishing propaganda that suggested burning coal was a good thing because it helps trees and that MORE of it in the atmosphere is actually a positive outcome. We owe it to nature to dig miles into the earth and strip the tops off mountains because it needs all the trapped CO2 in order to survive. It would be easier to embrace some of these counter-arguments by the deniers if crap like that wasn't foisted upon us.

Didn't hear the speech and didn't read a lick of the linked NYT story, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict his major economic plan is to lower taxes, especially corporate taxes, which are the highest in the world because that will create jobs by making it better for people to start small businesses. Am I close?

Has he been properly introduced to Butt and Fuchs? I can't believe I just typed that.

As I understood the point, it was to suggest that since water vapor comprises 95% of all green house gas in the atmosphere, the left would never point that out because it just isn't scary enough. Is there a bit of nuance I didn't catch there? If the point was to create an equivalency between water vapor and other green house gases, I don't buy it. I didn't laugh at the graph, I laughed at the suggestion that water vapor poses the same threat to our atmosphere as other green house gases. It doesn't by it's very cyclical nature. I certainly never made the assertion that water vapor isn't a factor in climate and the heating of the atmosphere. But I doubt that mankind has contributed large amounts of new water vapor into the atmosphere. You just can't say the same about fossil fuels previously trapped inside the earth.

I don't understand the science? Sorry, but I'm not the one who suggested that water vapor, because of it's sheer abundance in our atmosphere, is the most threatening of the green house gases. And the way you worded the argument was clumsy, too. Green house gases are not 95% water vapor as each green house gas is 100% of what it is, period. Methane is CH4, carbon dioxide is CO2, etc. You meant to say that water vapor comprises 95% of the green house gas in the atmosphere. But you conveniently just leave it at that and don't bother pointing out that water vapor recycles and doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long, while other green house gases, carbon dioxide especially, stays in the atmosphere far, far longer. That is not an insignificant thing to ignore. No, I don't profess to understand much of the science, let alone all of it. But I do understand what side of the argument makes the most sense. Perhaps much of that goes back to my COMSAT days when I worked closely with NOAA and NASA back in the early 90s and they first started getting results derived from entirely new instrumentation and technologies. Certainly, nobody had to scare me into that stance. It's not about being scared, anyway. It's about meeting challenges.

And water vapor also recycles. Carbon dioxide, methane, other gases tend to stay in the atmosphere for long periods. I like the comparison to the tobacco industry, too. For decades, they had no compunction about bald faced lies, either.

Which is what, exactly? I understand Eleven's point about making a determination of the costs involved if we determine human culpability and I can respect that. It's an important, perhaps most important, consideration moving forward. Sizzle pointed out that I'm a leftist, ideological bully. But what else is new? Oh, and he tried to convince me that water vapor is the real danger when it comes to green house gases with a nice colorful chart. I can't stop laughing at that one.

No. Just...no.

So humans haven't increased carbon dioxide emissions since the advent of fossil fuels for large energy production since the industrial revolution while at the same time denuding the earth's natural carbon dioxide cleansers? OK.

I suppose we could go back and forth with this link and that link, but that's a waste of time. I'm confident I'd find 10 scientists to disagree with every one of yours that denies global warming. I'll start with this short video: Utterly ridiculous. I only hope that's not interpreted as "abusive behavior" and gets me a suspension. Thus what I wrote after that. If defies logic to suggest we aren't contributing.

What difference does it make? To me, it doesn't matter if humans aren't responsible for any of it. It is happening. But it defies reason and basic 8th grade earth science, to KNOW that trapped green house gasses cause heating and to THEN think that burning MORE of them at ACCELERATED rates WORLDWIDE, while at the SAME TIME denuding forests and other vegetation at UNPRECEDENTED rates, doesn't at least contribute to the phenomenon.

The discrediting of that documentary goes a lot farther than you let on here. Chiefly, the players involved lack the bona fides within the scientific community to make any credible counter-claims to the established science. But as a propaganda counter-balance to Gore's 'Earth in the Balance', it served its purpose for those that needed to establish an opposing narrative, which was the main reason it was made in the first place. You have the part about the threat to the status quo correct, though, as NOTHING is more status-quo than our centuries old reliance on fossil fuels and the ENTIRE world economy that depends on it. No way the well heeled and deeply entrenched powers that be in the fossil-fuel world can let anything threaten the mother of all status quos.

I can't stop laughing! Seriously. I have tears streaming down my face.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle', released and aired in 2007 on BBC Channel 4, has been debunked seven ways to Sunday in the NINE years since. From misrepresented data to rearranged charts to interviews edited in ways to purposely mislead, it has been exposed as a fraud.

Hens and Kelly, AM&As, and Kleinhans with their downtown store windows festooned with all sorts of holiday scenes and gadgetry at Christmas time.

Speaking of rope swings, the rope swing that hung from the flagpole next to the big rock and Civil War cannons in Delaware Park. You could get a nice start off that rock!

Well, it's better than the alternative.

Fort Makowski

Followed by 'Love American Style'.

And don't go home until the street lights come on. Speaking of which: Touch football in the street, lamppost to lamppost. Giving rides to friends on the handlebars of your bike.

LOL! I read this too quickly and thought you said you'd be fine with Cruz. Or does Cruz become cuz on twitter.

My favorite:

Helpful for all of us, not just Trump supporters.

No worries, junior. I wasn't offended in the least and I was actually on the same page regarding the idea that they are going to explode. But there are plenty of videos and photographs already showing their explosions. I think I'll be doing them a service by holding up a mirror so that they can actually see themselves doing it in real time.