Doorhinge, you realize that pretty much your whole ‘point’ rests on an argumentum ad populum? It doesn’t matter how many dumb people there are who disagree with the experts, it doesn’t change reality either way.
You’re not very convincing. Better luck next time.
My position is that TrY2b CoMpReHeNsIvE and the other man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots STILL need to convince more members of the public/voters/elected representatives that man-made-CO2-is-evil laws and CO2 futures trading should be the law of the globe.
You chose to attack the very people you need to make your dreams come true. You’re a piss-poor salesman but you’re a first class zealot. Best of luck fulfilling your fantasy.
No doubt there is much political work to be done, but that “position” is not really a point. AGW is happening whether the public believes it or not.
You still don’t seem to be able to make your case for man-made-CO2 being the evil you proclaim it is. Just how many global-warming futures did you get stuck with when the market collapsed from lack of interest?
Saddest thing is that even what he claims is not really popular, what has happened is that powerful interests did manage to put their people in congress regardless of what many do think it should be done, and their propaganda also has made that result possible.
Many people believe that global warming is occurring. I believe that global warming is occurring. Many people believe this current cycle of global warming began before the end of the last ice age. You prefer to insult people and still expect them to support your demand for carbon regulation. Poor salesmanship seems to be your sides trademark. Keep up the good work.
That’s why I specified AGW. “A” is for “anthropogenic.” That is happening whether the public believes it or not.
Big players in the market are letting us know that they do not want to follow the destruction of the market by some rogue industry.
(post shortened)
I didn’t mean to interrupt your memorial for your bff, Renaissance Man.
I assumed you were just creating another strawman to avoid pontificating about why NOAA is currently refusing to release information about it’s methods.
Shhhhhhh! NOAA is a top secret organization that doesn’t like to share info with others.
INCONCEVABLE! 
Global warming has been happening for a really, really long time. Whether you believe it, or not.
Nah, just like a good creationist you only can complain thatthe grapes were bitter, in the meantime, while many creationists refuse to believe in evolution and vote accordingly eventually academics, industry, regulators and institutions have to ignore the nattering grape nabobs and continue with the changes regardless of how much they want to hold their breath until they get blue.
And, You keep using that conspiracy theory, Reasonable people do not think it means what you think it is. 
Of course we already do know that you have a good reason whatsoever about what natural forcing is the one causing the current warming observed.
Keep up with your dizzying intellect.
Correction:
Of course we already do know that you don’t have a good reason whatsoever about what natural forcing is the one causing the current warming observed.
Keep up with your dizzying intellect.
It’s not that the numbers are wrong, it’s that all those leading zeroes are a very awkward way of expressing them – that’s why terms like “ppm” were created. But putting in all the zeroes is an amusing appeal to ignorance, because morons are supposed to infer that the absolute amount of CO2 in the air is “very small” and therefore unimportant. You yourself seem to feel it important to emphasize how small the numbers are by everyday intuitive standards, although you appear to be the only one who’s actually impressed by that fact, presumably because you never went to high school. Which reminds me – did you have a chance to read the “Introduction to global warming for children” article that I linked for you? If it’s too hard to understand, you can Google “Tiki the Penguin explains global warming” which is done with cartoons.
But otherwise, no, I have no problem with the notation. Here, let me use it in a sentence. The difference between 0.000180 of CO2 and 0.000280 of CO2 is the difference between the continent of North America being in a deep freeze and covered in a mile-thick sheet of ice, and North America being covered in forests and vegetation and a temperate climate. So all those zeroes may impress uneducated buffoons, but not those who understand how CO2 and its amplifying feedbacks function as the primary driver of climate on this planet. The difference between ice ages and interglacials is only around 100 ppm of CO2. We’ve already exceeded the maximum interglacial amount by more than that. This should be deeply concerning to anyone in possession of a working brain. I note that you’re completely unconcerned.
Obviously because they don’t want the climate change hoax exposed!
Gigo already posted Phil Plait’s excellent article about Lamar Smith, a senile peabrained troglodyte who’s one of the most mendacious idiots ever elected to Congress, with the possible exception of his pal James Inhofe who claims that climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind” and only God can change the climate. You seem to like him, though – I see that you quoted his own press release to support your asinine argument.
You also quoted a story about it in the Washington Post. You forgot to quote the story that appeared a few days later in which Lamar Smith was exposed for the idiot that he is:
… a spokeswoman for Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in June published the paper by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview that their research was subject to a longer, more intensive review than is customary.
“This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received,” said Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. “Any suggestion that the review was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.” She said the paper, submitted to the journal in December, went through two rounds of peer review by other scientists in the field before it was accepted in May. The number of outside reviewers was larger than usual, and the time from submission to online publication was about 50 percent longer than the journal’s average of 109 days, Pinholster said.
During the review, the research was sent back to NOAA for revision and clarification, she said. And because it was based on such an “intensive” examination of global temperature data, the reviewed was handled by one of the journal’s senior editors, she said, “so it could be more carefully assessed.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/23/top-lawmaker-rebutted-on-climate-study-accusation/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
Lamar Smith represents his Texas oil constituency and has less knowledge of scientific facts than a turnip. His extreme stupidity makes it an open question whether he’s just a simple idiot like yourself, or is just opportunistically positioning himself for the Texas idiot vote.
What Smith is doing is exactly what another Texas Congressman, Joe Barton, was doing when he was harassing climate scientist Michael Mann and demanding all his personal emails and other records. Mann had already been the subject of two separate investigations at Penn State that were instigated by the hysteria of denialists, which not only completely exonerated him of any wrongdoing or scientific impropriety but in the end praised him for the quality of his work for which he’s received numerous awards and international acclaim. With regard to the email demands, Penn State told Barton to go pound sand up his ass.
I don’t understand why you refer to me as a “man-made-CO2-is-evil zealot”. For one thing, you seem to attribute this thought/meme to everybody else in the thread, which, considering how idiosyncratic people can be around here, is very unlikely to be accurate.
For two, my position is clearly that Exxon’s scientists concluded that AGW is a fact of life. That is, in fact, why they have such a boner to confuse people about the issue, and why they are now under investigation for securities fraud. Are they zealots? But we’ve been over this.
I don’t know what kind of zealot you take me for. I have a job, and a house/mortgage, and a girlfriend, and a few friends and interests. Mostly I am occupied with paying the bills. Is that zealotry? Seems like common sense, the alternative is to be another hobo begging for a fucking dollar.
My house doesn’t have to be so comfortable. My job doesn’t have to be so hard. I would continue to exist with a girlfriend less hot that my current one. I don’t know exactly why I have these standards, but I don’t see how they make me a zealot, especially re: climate change.
The house has AC and a gas-burning furnace. The car burns gasoline. There are no solar panels on the roof, and because of the HOA I don’t think it is up to me to put any up. But, the AC and the furnace are the most efficient models available, and the car gets pretty good mileage. Zealotry, though? I care about AGW to a point, but really, practical reality is winning out.
I invested quite a bit of my hard-earned money in solar companies. I think solar has a bright future and a viable business model (depending on the company), and I made some good choices and earned tens of thousands of dollars, while promoting and raising awareness of the solar industry. I am still sitting on about half of my stake, allowing it to accrue yet more value. I guess I took a certain amount of concrete action on AGW, according to my ability. That may sound a little communistic, “according to my ability”, but I am just being realistic. I did what I could do, it isn’t a dream, it is a reality. I turned capital into shares of ‘green’ stock, then turned shares of stock into real estate! It was a fascinating process. The fact that I am writing this from my home proves that I was right about… well, stocks, at least.
Exxon is a business. The solar industry is many businesses. I mean business, but I am just one guy. I don’t know how you believe that you can make claims about my ‘dreams’ and ‘fantasy’- I really haven’t talked much about those. I even started a thread about dreams, and didn’t say much about mine there, let alone here. Do you mind citing your source(s) of information about:
-my zealotry
-my desire to convince members of the public/voters/elected officials of the ‘evil’ of man-made CO2
-my intentions for new global laws
-who I am attacking
-my status as a salesman, for anything
-my dreams and fantasies
Thanks in advance.
It’s not that the numbers are wrong and you have no further problems with the notation. That’s good to know.
I’m in favor of investigations. If NOAA is cooperating and truely transparent with their global warming information, why are they not cooperating with public requests and refusing to provide the information requested by a Congressional committee. No subpoena should be required.
NOAA data had shown that global temps had recently plateaued for more than a decade. Now it appears that NOAA’s data was incorrect, or has just been corrected, to reflect different averages. Should I have believed them then, or should I believe them now? NOAA would appear to be more believable if they cooperated with those who request NOAA information and data. Their choice.
Alan Neuhauser U.S. News & World Report -
Monday, November 23, 2015
*Lamar Smith Is Hot About NOAA’s Climate Science
The source of his ire is a study from NOAA scientists published in the prominent journal Science in June. Crediting “significant improvements” in trend calculation, more recent data and “improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets,” NOAA said the study refutes the existence of a recent global warming “slowdown or ‘hiatus,’” striking at the heart of a favorite Smith talking point for castigating the Obama administration’s environmental agenda as well as so-called climate alarmists.
…In one of his latest letters – to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker on Wednesday – Smith also cited “whistleblowers” who provided information appearing to show the study was pushed to publication “despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA scientists … potentially violating NOAA’s scientific integrity policies.” NOAA is nested under the Commerce Department.*
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/23/lamar-smith-is-hot-about-noaas-climate-science
If NOAA wishes for their information and data to appear more believable to more people, they should cooperate with Congressional committees. Or they can refuse to cooperate and demand that more people simply believe everything they say without proof. Their choice.
You’re the one who believes things without evidence, and are too afraid to face reality, coward.
(post shortened, underline added)
The reality is that the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots need to do a better job of convincing more people that MMCO2IE laws should be the law of the globe. Your inability to spell my nom de plume correctly, along with your comment about “reality” led me to believe that you were another MMCO2IE zealot. The conversation had been focusing on the zealotry of global warming. I now realize that you were just lonely and wanted to talk about your personal life. You have a wonderful life. Feel better?
Exxon is under investigation. NOAA is under investigation. Investigations to not indicate guilt. Cooperating with an investigation (Exxon) does not indicate guilt. Refusing to cooperate with an investigation (NOAA) does not help their credibility.
Bwahahaha. You’re not going to convert anyone to your zealotry with that speech.