References please

What about municipalities rights? Isn't that 'closer to the people' which is double plus good right?

linky

Seriously though, google is your friend. A 'greenhouse' gas is not a 'gas present in greenhouses'. It's a gas that has the same effect as a greenhouse; i.e. trapping heat that enters via solar energy.

It's a simple physical property of the gas which is why you probably see the "it's obvious" reference. It's also a great indicator of the 'controversy'. Many in the climate change skeptic/denier camp have argued against it doing this. Arguing against testable and physical properties that are well proven and understood and conflating the 'unknowns' of a very large and complex system like the earth to sow doubt in the basic physics and science.

The study used by the EPA to 'approve' fracking in shale was a single well that wasn't in shale rock.

Shale is similar to sand? This should be good. Do tell.

It is new territory. There has never been a spike in such a short time as there has in the last 200 years. That a system as vast as the earth doesn't immediately respond is to be expected. But it's still responding faster than any known period previously.

That makes sense and hasn't been as yet, dis-proven. If it's so bad, that should be easy right?

Sources please. And not from 'biased' right wing sites...since you're so concerned with this.

And one of the favorite go to 'more' reasons is water vapor. You've now come full circle in your reasoning.

Are you denying that climate 'skeptics' stated with "It isn't warming" and have now largely shifted to the position you're now holding that, "Ok, it's warming but we can't prove it's related to us". Talk about moving the goal posts.

And as for being unable to publish? Bull fucking shit. There's a great big internet for them to publish on. If their ideas have merit, they'll be picked up on. Unless they flatly ignore data to make a point...

Rush Limbaugh is the one who brought it up during the last east coast blizzard.

You know who is also pretty silent in the summer? The skeptics saying "huh, it's hotter this year, might be global warming". You do know that Australia just had a summer so hot, not just warmer than average, but so hot they had to redraw the temperature gauges? So hot they've never had temps even near that range. linky

My 'beliefs' are based on science. Yours seem to be in spite of them.

They used 'intellectual property' to hide the outright pollution. You don't see the amazing coincidence there with Cheney being the driving force to help a company (and industry) he owns millions of stock in?

Where I live I can charge a battery during the day and use that to charge my electrics during the night time.

Where I lived is called *reality*.

immunity from disclosing - The Haliburton Loophole Courtesy of Dick Cheney

Jeb isn't electable. He was once but the brand is a bit tarnished now.

There was also his book release. The one where he went with the 2010-12 GOP surge and railed against illegal immigration. Only to run smack into fast changing politics on the issue. He actually tried to claim he basically didn't write the book it was so bad.

Never said Hilary is electable :) Just that the GOP people aren't.

You're in Canada...where the effects of climate change are being felt the largest and fastest. Talk to the people living off the land in the arctic...it's changing and changing fast. Permafrost is thawing. Polar bear populations are crashing because there the ice is retreating sooner and returning later.

Yep. Weather isn't climate. Irrelevant.

Guess my filter is off :)

The problem is your sarcastic argument is the exact actual argument used by deniers to explain what they see as lock step ideology of scientists...when it's actually just the rational result of studying the data. (The deniers see ideology because that's what they know)

what does per capita have to do with it? Warming isn't 'per capita', it's just warming.

That China has 3 times our population means they are going to be much much bigger in the future.

Perhaps you didn't read the study that the pacific has been absorbing the energy causing the seeming 'hiatus' in rising temps. linky So it's quite plausible that the pacific has been redistributing the heat lower into the ocean columns. Eventually though it stops being able to do that and the atmospheric heating continues...now with a warmer ocean to boot.

It's a complex system and we don't know everything but we continue to study and learn. As opposed to your ilk who just say 'nope, no problems' with no evidence to explain the workings of the system.

Much like claiming a snow storm means the climate isn't warming. It IS warming and has been for decades but because of a single blip in the trend you're ready to throw out decades of factual solid data on temps.

Very. It's called energy storage.