That the Earth goes through natural heating/cooling cycles.

That the Earth goes through natural heating/cooling cycles.

It does that is correct. Do you know what climate change is however.

Yes, I know what the talking heads and fear mongers want us to believe.

Which is what? That we are influencing the earth's natural cycles?

Yep

the talking heads and fear mongers

You mean scientists? Look if you go and look at the evidence it is extremely clear that we are having an impact and we are already starting to see that.

Yes the scientists being payed with government funding. The same government which wants to raise OUR taxes on everything from electric use to gasoline. The same government which is refusing to do anything about the price of fuel even though we are now the #1 producer of oil in the world.

Yes those scientists.

Yes the scientists being payed with government funding.

Scientists around the world do this research many of them without their government's funding. The United States isn't the only country in the world with scientists.

The same government which wants to raise OUR taxes on everything from electric use to gasoline.

Firstly they are your taxes because I don't live in the u.s. Secondly if they wanted to raised taxes on fuel why are they also subsidising it?

The same government which is refusing to do anything about the price of fuel even though we are now the #1 producer of oil in the world.

The price of Fuel in the U.S is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than other western countries.

Exactly. Show proof of the above.

Are you asking me to show proof that we are?

That is exactly what I am asking. Please show conclusive proof that human activity, specifically CO2, is the cause of climate change. And that does not mean linking to a 900 page study that no one is going to read.

If it is that easy to prove and comprehend just summarize it for me in a paragraph.

Sure, I'll bite. It is pretty basic once you get it. Not proof, but a less-traditional explanation:

The earth and atmosphere have historically gone through longterm cycles. Important elements - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen - also go through cycles. The location and amount of carbon at different stages of this cycle, like carbon in the air, or in plants and animals, or deep in the earth, is well-regulated by the earth.

Now, humans have come along and found ancient pre-human carbon deep in the earth. Stuff that took a very very long time to get there. According the way earth has handled shit for 4.5 billion years, that carbon should continue to go down, deeper into the earth, until tectonic plate movements turn it into magma. Then the carbon can go back to the atmosphere through a volcanic eruption.

Instead, we've decided to dig up the fossil fuel, burn it, and dump it into the atmosphere. Humans have done in 100 years what takes the earth much much longer.

According to historical "climate change" and natural cycles, the earth is due for a cooling period. However, observation shows the earth is warming. Therefore, human-caused warming due to dumping carbon in the atmosphere is very real.

Ok I will give you a simple summary I could go into far more detail but you don't really need that to understand the basics.

Ok the basic theory is that all the gasses in the atmosphere absorb heat and do so in varying amounts. Gases that absorb more heat than normal air are called greenhouse gases. The most common greenhouse gas that we pollute the air with is CO2 carbon dioxide but there are other gases such as methane. As we pollute more greenhouse gases the atmosphere beings to absorb more heat, which starts to heat up the planet.

I can elaborate further if you want there is a lot more I can talk about and prove plenty of evidence to back up all my claims.

In terms of are we having an effect on the environment the only answer is yes. The question is to what degree.

Humans use fossil fuels. That adds carbon to the atmosphere. That much is simple and not debatable.

What I do not see in either of these summaries is conclusive proof that carbon is making the world warm up. Aren't all the predictions about Carbon and warming wrong?

What I do not see in either of these summaries is conclusive proof that carbon is making the world warm up.

What do you mean? There is no conclusive proof that CO2 absorbs more heat than regular air? I can point you to plenty of links that explain that it does. Or if you really want you can see the results of an experiment that I did that proves it as well.

These graphs should also help. Global Land–Ocean Temperature Index Rise in temp occurs at the same time as increased carbon in line with past trends.

Temps and Carbon Dioxide levels over the last 400 thousand years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Aren't all the predictions about Carbon and warming wrong?

Probably no. Yes plenty of predictions aren't as bad as was what predicted but they share the same trends.

But the data actually shows that carbon follows temperature, it doesn't cause it.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

The science disagrees with that. Think about it this way. Greenhouse gases increase the temp OR temps increase greenhouse has levels (which also happen to increase temps too) What causes the temp increase if not the greenhouse gases? (Sorry for shitty grammar I'm on my phone and your link doesn't work for the same reason)

This matters man. They want world wide taxes on carbon that will add up to hundreds of billions a year. This is not a "we think its a better idea so lets do it".

A carbon tax will amount to the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world (I have a background in economics) so the conclusions have to be 100% sure.

This is not a "we think its a better idea so lets do it".

It's a far better solution than doing nothing about an issue that must be dealt with.

A carbon tax will amount to the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world (I have a background in economics) so the conclusions have to be 100% sure.

It will be transferring money from big polluters until they stop polluting so much into at least partially businesses that are greener.

Now we talking about something I am an expert on, and that is simply not correct.

What is being proposed and what is being packaged are very different. A carbon tax is not a tax on polluters any more than sales tax is a tax on retailers. It is a tax on consumers.

We all want to do the right thing in life. And I for one am not going to argue that a 150 year old technology hodgepodge of the combustion engine oil and coal are preferable to solar or wind, but make no mistake about it, the world is not going off oil and coal one day to the next.

A carbon tax will be the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of humanity, and there is no exaggeration there. The winners will be the corporations, and the losers will be the consumers, especially the poorest people in the world.

I won't argue about the details of one way of dealing with the issue. A carbon tax is one way of helping, It isn't the only way of dealing with this and it isn't even the best way of doing it in terms of a tax on levels of pollution. An ETS is a much better way of operating.

Earlier you were denying the problem entirely now it will make the big polluters, the people we are trying to change the ways of the winners? Well they will be when they are the ones to change and their competition lags behind. With an ETS companies like tesla will be the winners not fucking Chrysler.

but make no mistake about it, the world is not going off oil and coal one day to the next.

No and the world isn't heating a degree every year but we could substantially increase our renewable energy output if we made the investment.

No, earlier I was asking questions about the science, which I am not an expert it. What I am an expert in is the economics and I fully understand that the hyperbole surrounding this issue is more profitable than anything on the planet, barring maybe banking and war.

What I am seeing on the science is maybe the world is warming and maybe carbon is to blame, but we should tax it anyway just in case.

I think you are doing a disservice to the people fighting for pollution reduction and an emissions trading scheme.

I'll do the math for you because you seem like you are actually a good person.

The estimated cost of a carbon tax will be $250B a year.

Last year world GDP was $60T. World growth was ~1.5%. That's about $900B.

Skimming $250B off the top regulates the poorest 2,000,000,000 to zero hope of improving their lot.

I know it's easy to see the world in black and white. Exxon bad, IPCC good, but it's not that simple.

Where do those numbers come from? And are they for a world wide carbon tax?

UN projections.

Well I feel that whist you did being up the carbon tax I may have been too general in my thoughts towards it. At the moment i feel that western countries with high pollution per capita should be being taxed not everyone. Countries like USA, Aus and Western Europe, countries that have a developed economy and can both afford and benefit from decreased pollution.

Countries like India and China who have high pollution but low per capita have economies that can't afford it should be allowed to grow.

Great answer.

I have no love for oil companies or polluters. But I cannot condemn 2B people to hopelessness because of group think.

What they aren't telling you is that "climate change/global warming" or whatever the catch phrase is this week is a hoax. Follow the money and you will get your answer.

No if you follow the money you will find people who are denying it because they have a lot to lose if we change our ways, oil companies for example.

Yes. The government profits more from oil then the oil companies in the form of taxes and regulations. The whole "carbon credit" idea is a scam, pay for poulition? What benefit is it to the environment that some government is collecting payments to allow companies to release carbon? The whole concept is to make it so small companies can no longer afford to operate and have to sell out to larger corporations where the same people that are pushing for these "climate change" regulations have investments. Guess who makes out like a bandit?

The whole "carbon credit" idea is a scam, pay for poulition?

It makes sense if you actually think about it. You cap the amount of pollution that a company can emit. If they go over they either have to pay the government or they can buy cap space off a greener company that has room. Small green businesses actually benefit.

It makes no sense, money does not fix the mythical climate change problem the they have created.

Firstly of all go and actually look at the evidence and tell me that the problem is mythical or I could explain it for you if you want me to.

A simple explanation of one aspect of climate change is this: Carbon Dioxide absorbs more heat and normal air as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere more heat is absorbed in the atmosphere and the planets temperature increases. The huge emissions of Carbon by humans is not causing the cycle itself, it is speeding it up.

Secondly you don't seem to understand the point of the cap. It creates a monetary (you know dollars? what our economies are based on) incentive to business who don't pollute and punishes those who pollute high amounts. It's like creating a limit on how much garbage can be collected from a house, if that house exceeds the limit they have to buy garbage space off their neighbours.

that we don't know fuck all about the location and condition of three molten cores from Fukushima, that has fucked this planet irreparably.

[deleted]

I'm not looking for people to tell me how to think. I'm trying to find out what other people think.

And you do sound like an asshole

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15b-jx7FYHs

f1 layer graphs are very telling for me

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject/videos

This has some good videos on Earths climate if you search through their videos.

google: 'they want to blame you' If you feel like entertaining the thought that climate change is an excuse for agenda 21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRdb5x3yi8

that they have been experimenting with reflecting particles in the upper atmosphere to mitigate warming, and they overdid it.

I posted this as a reply in this thread, commenting so OP and others can see it too. Climate change is very real. Don't think that just because people use climate change for political gain, or the enviro-pollution scare tactic for control and power, that the fundamental reality is false.

The earth and atmosphere have historically gone through longterm cycles. Important elements - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen - also go through cycles. The location and amount of carbon at different stages of this cycle, like carbon in the air, or in plants and animals, or deep in the earth, is well-regulated by the earth.

Now, humans have come along and found ancient pre-human carbon deep in the earth. Stuff that took a very very long time to get there. According the way earth has handled shit for 4.5 billion years, that carbon should continue to go down, deeper into the earth, until tectonic plate movements turn it into magma. Then the carbon can go back to the atmosphere through a volcanic eruption.

Instead, we've decided to dig up the fossil fuel, burn it, and dump it into the atmosphere. Humans have done in 100 years what takes the earth much much longer.

According to historical "climate change" and natural cycles, the earth is due for a cooling period. However, observation shows the earth is warming. Therefore, human-caused warming due to dumping carbon in the atmosphere is very real.

It really is basic shit, doesn't need 9000 pages or hard science to illustrate that we're fucking this shit up. But in exchange, we get big buildings and fresh fruit shipped across the world now, and all the problems in the future. Not a bad deal if I'm just gonna die.

I think you are doing a disservice to the people fighting for pollution reduction and an emissions trading scheme.