It's been more than proven. There's a direct association between an ever rising CO2 index and retained solar insolation. The atmosphere itself only warms slightly, because most of the heat energy that doesn't escape into space at night warms sea water and melts ice. Heat energy moves from warm to cold, a fact that no amount of denying can overcome. Direct measurements show that CO2 from burning fossil fuels have upped the CO2 index from 286ppm 1800 to 350ppm in 1950 to close to 400ppm today. Direct measurements of artic Ice thickness show a loss of 1/3 to 1/3 in depth. You can check this out by typing US Navy and Climate Change. Research Artic Ice Thickness as well.
"It never has been proven that CO2 is a legitimate problem..."
How would you even know?
The funny thing about you Sagebrush is that you must know that you really don't know a thing about science. I mean aren't you 75 years old or something like that? You can't have deluded yourself about your own knowledge of science all these decades, can you? When all the other kids were getting the good grades in science class, and you weren't, didn't you see that as a sign that you don't really understand science that well?
Remember how you didn't know what a BSk climate was, but made up some completely irrelevant answer anyway?
Remember how you said that cold climates are that way because they're farther from the sun?
Face up to the facts Sagebrush, you wouldn't even pass Climatology 101.
EDIT: Did that excuse work on your junior high school science teacher when you failed the exams? "I couldn't pass this chemistry test because the questions were communistic."
“It never has been proven that CO2 is a legitimate problem” Please expand on this claim using credible evidence to back up your position (opinions do not count as credible evidence). In doing so please define the role of CO2 in contributing to the natural warming that ensures this planet is habitable and how this CO2 differs from human emissions of CO2.
Personally I don’t think we should tax carbon, I’ve never favoured the imposition of any financial impediment or instrument as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The difference is that I don’t make up fairy-tales in order to support my opinion.
I favour a scientific and technological solution instead. However, if idiots keep blocking these advances then governments will be forced to impose further taxations. People in future will really thank the sceptics for delaying action and burdening them with higher taxes. Still, I guess the important thing for some sceptics is that it will be someone else’s problem so as far as they’re concerned it doesn’t matter.
Taxing carbon is the only way to encourage industry to capture carbon. A carbon tax would be more expensive than installing a capturing device. Since the bottom line for business is money, they will come around. In the early stages of proposing carbon tax it was designed to lower personal income taxes for individuals to compensate for taxing carbin
Tax carbon because it is a way of controlling people. Al Gore is currently calling for fertility programmes in Africa.
If you prefer to bequeath a damaged economy to your great grandchildren, and their great great grandchildren's great grandchildren, rather than pay your fair share of the cost of spending the one time human inheritance of fossil fuels, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie... you have the right to vote for such myopia, in a democratic society, and the freedom of speech to advocate for such preferences.
But scientific facts are not changed by your wasting your life here parading your monumental ignorance of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
"It never has been proven that CO2 is a legitimate problem" Sorry, you fail right there.
Agreed! But politicians have been 'investing' in developing a reason to tax. The investment of course being the $$Billions of tax dollars spoon-fed to those so-called 'scientists' who are willing to sell their souls in exchange for "research" grant money.
And DOOK.....your references to the NAS and the prestige of membership fall on deaf ears. The NAS was indeed a prestigous scientific body at one time, but it has prostituted itself into just another political sock-puppet club. Sad....but true.
Its a value added tax designed to make Obama debt go away . Tom Friedman wants one for that reason .
He is a flat Earther.
It never has been proven that CO2 is a legitimate problem, so until someone can actually prove it is why waste our time and efforts on something that up to now has no proven benefit to society as a whole?
Carbon taxes are the wrong way to go, the whole global warming agenda has crumbled. I'm glad Australia will abolish their carbon tax later this year, as it damages the economy and jobs.
To help spread wealth, make those people in China and India richer
