Dear lord, please make it stop. I should have known you were a troll!

In fact, what I'm saying is in 100% agreement with the "more than hundreds of Atmospheric and Climate scientists who say that greenhouse gases are warming the planet". I never said that greenhouse gases aren't warming the planet. It is established scientific fact that they are. Earth would be about 33 degrees colder if not for the ill-named "greenhouse effect". The problem is YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature and the fact that horticultural greenhouses are warmer than the outside environment. That statement is patently false. There is not one of those "hundres of atmospheric and climate scientists" who would agree with your statement to that regard.

As for my field of specialty, because you asked, I have a degree in chemical engineering with a focus on environmental science, and I'm a Ph.D. student in materials science and engineering (focus nanotechnology) with about a year to go.

Of course "greenhouse gases" warm the earth's atmosphere, this is not disputed. But the reason greenhouses are warmer inside than outside is NOT because they are filled with extra CO2. Greenhouse gases are warmer because the enclosure reduces convective heat transfer. There is no dispute about this, just like there is no dispute that "greenhouse gases" warm the earth's atmosphere by a completely different mechanism.

At this point I'm just trying to educate you, since I am a scientist and it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people misunderstand basic scientific concepts. Or perhaps you're really a troll and I'm wasting my time.

Did you google "greenhouse gas misnomer"? Do you still not understand your mistake - that greenhouse gases warm the earth's atmosphere, but the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer because the mechanism that keeps greenhouses warmer than the outside air is completely different from the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere?

I'll say it another way. The reason gardeners in Scandinavia can grow tomatoes in greenhouses is NOT because they pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses and this causes them to trap heat. It is because, regardless of the CO2 content inside the greenhouses, the greenhouse enclosure allows radiative heat transfer in, but prevents convective heat transfer out. Do you understand the difference between radiative and convective heat transfer?

I'll go into even further detail. Sunlight shines into greenhouses, warming everything inside - the ground, the plants, the air inside, and so-on. Without the greenhouse enclosure, the heat transfer process called convection would occur, transferring heat from inside the greenhouse to outside, and the temperature in the greenhouse would cool until it is the same as the outside world. The enclosure prevents this convection from taking place, and therefore the heat that enters the greenhouse through radiative heat transfer is trapped inside, and the greenhouse stays warm.

As I said, at this point I'm just trying to help, and in fact this conversation is making me worry about how pervasive this misconception about greenhouses/greenhouse-gases is in the general public.

You just unwittingly proved my point while displaying your own ignorance. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses because it is an essential plant nutrient, and higher CO2 levels assist plant growth. It has nothing at all to do with making greenhouses warmer. Greenhouses stay warm because the enclosure reduces convective heat transfer.

It is very, very well-known in the science community that the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer. It's also much-lamented that the term has stuck (I don't know who first used it), because many in the public misconstrue it to imply that the mechanism involved in the climate "greenhouse effect" is the same as that which keeps greenhouses warm.

Seriously, just google "greenhouse misnomer" and you'll find many hits that explain it further. I will now accept your apology.

It's right - remember the timescale is millions of years. Here's the source, from the well-known geologist Christopher Scotese:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Don't be silly. You know very well that computer climate models take into account the physics of infrared radiation absorption by gases. I presume that's the "work of Fourier and Farady (sic)" that you're talking about. The question the climate models try to answer is whether the heat-trapping effect of a trace gas is significant compared to the many other drivers of climate change, and if so what the consequences of that effect will be.

Here's the research proving my point (oh and I was wrong, CO2 change lags temperature change by 1000 years, not 200,000):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791

As for your assertion that CO2 has never increased without an increase in global temperature, firstly as I mentioned before you have the causal relationship backwards: it's been shown that temperature increases first, then CO2 increases 1000 years later (same for decreases of both).

Also, how about this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SANF6KvP1sI/AAAAAAAAATQ/FP8y3DPkssY/s1600-h/image277.gif

I see CO2 changes without corresponding temperature changes happening many times there.

You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.

Wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet. In fact, the only causal relationship ever found is the inverse: it's been shown that changes in temperature have caused equivalent changes in CO2 concentration, with the change in CO2 lagging the change in temperature by about 200,000 years.

Global Warming theory is based on computer climate models, not on historical evidence.

Your argument would work, except for the fact that (aside from the current issue of tax evasion) corporate taxes affect all companies in a given market fairly uniformly. This provides a mechanism for all prices to creep up, and the market actually does bear a higher price when there is no alternative, to a point. This absolutely does happen. And the reverse is true as well: if the corporate tax were set to zero, many companies would lower the price of their products overnight, and the rest would be forced to follow, or lose business.

Of course as other posters have pointed out, the tax is not paid totally by the consumer, but rather by a combination of consumer and investor. It doesn't change the fact that no matter how you figure it, corporate taxes end up being paid by individuals, whether consumers or investors. And this doesn't even consider the enormous cost and burden of complying with a tax code that's as complex as ours (67,000 pages and counting!).

My point is that it's silly to argue for higher corporate taxes, because however you figure it, it increases the tax burden on individuals, except it's hidden so they don't even realize they're being taxed - and that's not a good thing.

I agree with everything you said. I was being overly simplistic for the sake of brevity. In truth it's as you say: corporate taxes are paid in part by the customers, and in part by the shareholders. Either way, it's paid by individuals. I would argue that customers pay a significantly larger burden than shareholders (aside from the fact that these groups do overlap).

Also note those shareholders aren't the millionaires you make them out to be. They're ordinary people, anyone with a retirement or pension fund, anyone with an investment of almost any kind. I'm a poor graduate student and I own shares in several companies. I think for the average Fortune 500 company, millionaire execs own only about 2% of the shares.

I'm sure we do, somehow...

Of course it's simplistic, this is a Slashdot post, not a treatise on economics.

And they do. That's why higher corporate taxes put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Of course, but, this current issue of tax shelters aside, corporate taxes affect businesses fairly uniformly across-the-board, so every product in the market is affected by price creep.

And technically I should be separating the issues of profits and profit margins to take into account the higher demand for products from companies that buck the trend and let their shareholders take the hit rather than their customers (or companies that flee to tax havens). And of course a huge issue is the global economy, in which we have foreign companies that have lower tax burdens competing against American companies, and are therefore generally able to price their products lower, or with higher profit margins.

So while my suggestion of a direct correlation between product prices and corporate taxes was over-simplified for the sake of brevity, it doesn't change the point I'm making, with which I think you agree: that one way or another, corporate taxes are paid by individuals - either the consumers or the investors.

That would be a much better solution, if your objective is to tax investors rather than consumers. From the perspective of liberty, it's better to tax individuals directly rather than through "hidden" taxes like corporate taxes, that way they are informed of the amount of tax they are actually paying, and can make better decisions about who to vote for and what government policies to support.