Remember the time the "pro-science" Republican party banned stem cell research? Yeah.

It's interesting that you should mention the Vostok ice cores. Being familiar with that evidence means you should be aware that, in the last ~400,000 years (which spans several 'ice ages') the concentration of CO2 never rose above ~300ppm. We currently sit at ~390ppm (last I checked).

Please note:
This is an excellent example of what Global Climate Change "skeptics" sound like when they call global warming a "religion".

There was a poll of climatologists conducted back during the Bush administration and even those "government grant" scientists felt pressured to downplay/minimize the consequences of Anthropegenic Climate Change.

Source, 2007.

The notion that the next commander-in-chief should have experience running a private corporation is slightly better than the notion, quite popular a few years ago, that your next commander-in-chief should be someone you would like to "share a beer" with.

I thought that the president could sign any treaty he likes but that his signature means almost nothing until the treaty is ratified by congress.

I haven't crunched the numbers but I suspect the OP is using the phrase "best at heavy lift" in terms of $/Kg to put something into orbit.

This finding reminds me of the "neutrinos interact with radioactive decay rates" story from a while back.

I know him, and he lives in the great state of denial.

I wonder if, in 30 years, we'll be talking about the discovery of exomoons.

The political consequences of averting catastrophic climate change has no bearing on the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.
For example:
Creationists love to claim that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Evolution requires supporting involuntary Eugenics programs. We all know that isn't true, but the Creationists claim it anyway.
Many people will try to tell you that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change requires "living in mud huts (or any other form of economic fearmongering)". We all know that isn't true, but the climate change "skeptics" will claim it anyway.

Wow, George Carlin took something figurative "save the planet" and he talked about it literally! That's genius!
... but seriously, imagine someone trying to tell you that preventing a nuclear war wasn't "saving the planet" because the post-apocalypse Earth would continue to orbit the Sun. It's needlessly pedantic. The end of humanity figuratively means the end of the planet.

McCuccinellyism.

"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity." (Source)

Between TemperedAlchemist, Doc Ruby and I: We've completely demolished every argument you've made.
It is clear to everyone that you are badly misinformed on the topic of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.

<right-wing radio>Those tee-shirts absolutely ARE an attack on middle-class families... But don't you dare call Timothy McVeigh, Anders Behring Breivik, Jim Adkisson, or Scott Roeder terrorists! Those were "isolated incidents".</right-wing radio>