Actually, I could.
eh, too late
Well, what about poor CO2? Certainly the Wikipedia article will have something.
Oh yes, right in the definition itself. " Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the rate of global warming and causing anthropogenic climate change"
Finally! An article that will explain the theory behind Anthropogenic climate change! Or the theories.
Oops.
Ok, what about Climate Change? the theories must be there!
Oops. The term “theory” does not appear in the article, or the sources. Not even once.
Wow. No wonder poor Gigiogalloper can’t define it, or explain the various theories that make up the not-a-theory. There isn’t anything there.
Not even anything about The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Clamatic Change
No wonder it’s so hard to discuss this stuff.
Indeed. 
Here’s an attempt to build an understanding of what is up for debate and what is agreed upon by “all” “sides” of the debate.
Let’s start with basic items and add to a list of things that are agreed upon and things that are proposed but not agreed on.
Agreed Upon Items/Facts:
<none>
Anyone care to propose something that they think “all” sides would agree to or that is stated in a clearly supported factual way? For example, a general fact/item might be:
“average global temperature has increased since 1900”
or, a clearly supported fact (like a basic data point) might be:
“temperature in my office right now is 69”
Oh sure, you come in late and try to win the entire thread by pointing out how nobody can agree on anything.
FX is a stupid idiot would be a start. He probably smells bad too, what with his refusal to shower because he doesn’t believe the earth is getting hotter despite the sweat stains. Next I would put that FX is probably avoided by the neighborhood kids, because who wants to play with a smelly idiot?
Facts probably not in dispute
Every analysis, re-analysis and satellite record shows warming since 1979.
No record or analysis of records shows cooling since 1979
How’s that for a start?
Fact #2
There are people who make a lot, I mean a LOT of money off of the current system of fossil fuels for power and transportation. Any efforts that will reduce their profits will be fought over, fought hard and fought dirty.
Anyone disagree with that?
Ok, let’s add to a proposed before moving to confirmed list:
Proposed Items/Facts
1 - Every analysis, re-analysis and satellite record shows warming since 1979.
2 - No record or analysis of records shows cooling since 1979
3 - Oil money results in hard/dirty fight to prevent reduction in oil consumption
4 - FX smells bad due to global warming
Agreed Items/Facts
What is the advantage of the code tags?
I’m pretty sure if we start agreeing on facts the thread will get locked or something.
The Pit has rules you know.
Just trying to separate the lists from text discussing, doesn’t have to be there
Lets spice up the facts:
The fucking temperature has definitely increased according to the motherfucking satellites
Now that’s more like it.
Note the sats agree mostly. And the January anomalies (land only) for the RSS http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_v03_3.txt
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
show how global warming works.
1981 0.56
2008 -0.2
2008 January global temps were .76 lower than Jan 1981
Fucking global warming man. How the fuck do you get that cold of a global temperature, after 27 years of the planet trapping heat?
Land and ocean together isn’t much different.
Goddam you global warming.
Did your mom drop you on your head?
Repeatedly it seems…
I can support 1,2,3 and four if you alter it to just " FX smells bad." We can’t blame global warming for all our problems…
Let us suppose that CO2 is indeed the driver of AGW. Now. we decide to reduce the use of fossil fuels-does tht mean that developing economies (India, china, etc.) get to keep buring coal, oil, etc.? If a manufacturerer cannot produce in the USA because of FF restrictions, wmat prevents an Indian or Chinese mfg. from making the products there? If any reduction of CO2 is to be achieved, it must start by amassive conversion to nuclear power-wind, solar, etc. wil not cut it. Why isn’t this being proposed?
We can go further, and assume that present levels are already a massive danger.
Of course they will keep using fuel. And presently, nobody can just tell any country what to do. In fact, their fuel needs will keep rising in the near future.
That is already the case. No need for fuel restrictions, labor cost, EPA rules, and economics has already led to both manufacturing and tech support to be moved to Asia.
Nuclear has zero chance, as it costs too much. And if there was a massive boom in new reactors (China actually has 25 of them planned) the uranium would just run out sooner. At current usage there is less than 200 years left. Methods to extract it from seawater exist, but even the best new mechanism is 10 times the cost of mining. Again, far too expensive.
It probably has been. There are all kinds of “proposals”, but since they involve telling other people what to do, while the proposer continues to use cheap fossil energy, nobody takes it seriously.
And electricity isn’t the largest source of CO2 at all. Converting even a small fleet of vehicles, ships and aircraft to run off clean nuclear power is a pipe dream. if anyone actually did a small scale version, it would be a miracle.
However, Span and Germany both have ignored the naysayers and developed solar power to the point where they are getting a lot of “free” energy from the giant fusion reactor that comes up each day.
Why doesn’t “the USA” harvest the abundant sunshine of it’s vast southern deserts? Florida could generate more electricity that it uses each day from just solar. With out even using croplands.
Why isn’t there even a small project doing this there? It seems an obvious way to reduce carbon output, with out expensive nuclear power. Right now.
In reality, there actually is one small solar power boost plant in Florida. (not that you would know this)
It boosts a gas fired generator, so when the sun is up, and power demand is high, they use solar heat to boost the generator. On a hot day no natural gas needed, biut at night if demand is high they use gas. Works quite well, very small footprint, and FPL just quietly built it and runs it.
FPL also built and uses the largest wind farm in the world. It produces far more electricity than two nuclear reactors, and the vagaries of win don’t matter, as it is part of the national grid.
On a windy day in Texas, they make record profit off of “free” energy. They also generated a bunch of jobs by building the windmills. The farmers they leased the land from still use it to graze cattle or grow crops, whatever.
The world works on profit, not idealism. If there was profit in solar and wind, FPL would be using both.
Same for any one else.
There is this kid with his new buddy, and he says “Watch this, but don’t say anything”, and they go into the barber shop. The barber tells his customer, “Hey watch this” and calls the kid over.
He holds out a quarter in one hand, and a dollar in the other. “Which do you want kid?”
The kid takes the quarter, says thanks and leaves.
The barber laughs and tells the customer, “Dumbest kid I ever met. He always takes the quarter!”
The kid and his friend are buying candy and as they walk out of the store the new friend asks him, “Why didn’t you take the dollar?”
The kid says, “The day I do that, the game is over”
So you are saying you mean the Plass theory when you use AGW?
what is the theory?
What do you mean by modern global warming theory?