California's Climate-Change Experiment

California's Climate-Change Experiment

There are 90 comments on the Real Clear Politics story from Jan 1, 2013, titled California's Climate-Change Experiment. In it, Real Clear Politics reports that:

STARTING ON JAN. 1, California will begin the nation's most ambitious experiment yet in fighting climate change, and it will do it more or less alone.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Real Clear Politics.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#1 Jan 1, 2013
One more time, B-R-A-V-O California!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/us-sh...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2 Jan 1, 2013
One more time move there.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#3 Jan 1, 2013
From the article:

Beginning in 2013, the nation’s largest state, the ninth-largest economy in the world, will put a price on the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#4 Jan 1, 2013
Global warming cooling climate change greenhouse gas,You and your picture buddy realy really don't know. Move there.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#5 Jan 1, 2013
PHD wrote:
Global warming cooling climate change greenhouse gas,You and your picture buddy realy really don't know. Move there.
Go back to school, if they let you. Big IF.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#6 Jan 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
From the article:
Beginning in 2013, the nation’s largest state, the ninth-largest economy in the world, will put a price on the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.
They will not be the ninth largest economy for long. They were the seventh and Texas is getting ready to pass them up as well. Brazil and India have moved ahead already. Even Russia is not that far behind.

The fact that they are going ahead will only mean that more businesses will move away, more companies will not expand or set up operations if the Sunshine state.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/20...

http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-Sept-2012-CA...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7 Jan 3, 2013
SpacedoutBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Go back to school, if they let you. Big IF.
Global warming cooling climate change greenhouse gas,You and your picture buddy realy really don't know. Move there.
litesong

Everett, WA

#8 Jan 3, 2013
phud feces face wrote:
realy really don't ......
"phud feces face" realy really doesn't(right spelling) know how to spell,'really'. So he uses both. Further failings by "phud feces face".
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#9 Jan 4, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
me"pinheadlitesout" realy really doesn't(right,left spelling) know how to spell, I'really don't'. So I uses both. Further failings by me"pinheadlitesout" soon to arrive.
Also another spanking by tina soon to arrive your way have fun with it.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10 Jan 4, 2013
Most man made catastrophic global warming alarmists don't know what an experiment is. No wonder they believe in climate change mitigation.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#11 Jan 4, 2013
Most man made catastrophic global warming cooling climate change alarmists really really don't know.
SpaceBlues

United States

#12 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Most man made catastrophic global warming alarmists don't know what an experiment is. No wonder they believe in climate change mitigation.
No, you are wrong about other people.

You are also wrong about yourself. You think you know science without evidence.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#13 Jan 14, 2013
They certainly aren't wrong about you. You really really don't know.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#14 Jan 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong about other people.
You are also wrong about yourself. You think you know science without evidence.
Is he? Care to offer something more than a claim and a simple look at his post. After all, one could look at your posts and make the same claim using your posts as evidence.

Think about it this way. If you were sitting in a court and the other side offered documented fact after documented fact as evidence, physical proof in the form of experiments and history that can be examined in detail by one and all. Then your time came and all you can offer is your opinion. One that is with out a doubt very biased that BrianG is wrong.

Any judge would be forced to rule in BrianG favor for no other reason than the body of evidence for him would be greater than your claims backed by your opinion.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#15 Jan 16, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Is he? Care to offer something more than a claim and a simple look at his post. After all, one could look at your posts and make the same claim using your posts as evidence.
Think about it this way. If you were sitting in a court and the other side offered documented fact after documented fact as evidence, physical proof in the form of experiments and history that can be examined in detail by one and all. Then your time came and all you can offer is your opinion. One that is with out a doubt very biased that BrianG is wrong.
Any judge would be forced to rule in BrianG favor for no other reason than the body of evidence for him would be greater than your claims backed by your opinion.
Good job you spanked him again!!!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#16 Jan 17, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Is he? Care to offer something more than a claim and a simple look at his post. After all, one could look at your posts and make the same claim using your posts as evidence.
Think about it this way. If you were sitting in a court and the other side offered documented fact after documented fact as evidence, physical proof in the form of experiments and history that can be examined in detail by one and all. Then your time came and all you can offer is your opinion. One that is with out a doubt very biased that BrianG is wrong.
Any judge would be forced to rule in BrianG favor for no other reason than the body of evidence for him would be greater than your claims backed by your opinion.
I whittled it down to 6 proofs, after combing proofs together.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

It's concise. Ask for more details on any section.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#17 Jan 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I whittled it down to 6 proofs, after combing proofs together.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
It's concise. Ask for more details on any section.
Ok can you show all your own published work to support you cut and paste babble?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#18 Jan 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I whittled it down to 6 proofs, after combing proofs together.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
It's concise. Ask for more details on any section.
Proof one, two, and four actually disprove your points and prove that climate change is natural. Three is based on a single study that was later found to have serious errors. That was also the year the first study disproving AGW came out. Notice that they talk about sun activity all the way back in 850 AD. Not much was being recorded about the sun at the time. In fact some of the study was based on Dr Mann's data which was later discovered to have errors as well.

Five and six deal with CO2 and they discovered where much of the CO2 was coming from and it turns out it was locked in permafrost. Which concured with the fact that every time the temperature rose the CO2 levels rose. Which also means the CO2 is an effect and not a cause. Notice how they claim that Venus is hotter than Mercury. What they did was measure the dark side of Mercury which is cooler. Mercury is locked into position by the sun's gravity and only one side ever faces the sun. That side is covered with molten rock while the dark side remains cooler. This is of course because Mercury has no atmosphere to allow the heat to move while Venus does.
Also, ask yourself where did Venus get all that CO2 mentioned. It isn't like man colonized it a million years ago. Venus has a little volvano problem which isn't the only gas that Venus has. Then there is the density of the atmosphere which of course also generates heat.

It turns out your proof was long ago debunked here by far better people than you or I. I first logged on to Topix back in 2006 and there were people arguing the same thing and found the flaws in this back then. Maybe you should do a little more research.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#19 Jan 18, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Five and six deal with CO2 and they discovered where much of the CO2 was coming from and it turns out it was locked in permafrost. Which concured with the fact that every time the temperature rose the CO2 levels rose. Which also means the CO2 is an effect and not a cause.
There is carbon in the permafrost, but it has only just begun to melt- it will be a positive feedback to AGW.

The rise in CO2 of course is due to the half a trillion tons that humans have added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#20 Jan 18, 2013
My the tina gave another spanking to the fairy lame and th walloped 10. Good job tina.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 47 min Solarman 5
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 2 hr Fair Game 149
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr B As In B S As In S 36,584
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Patriot 11,057
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Mothra 63,400
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 4 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 2,235
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 5 hr silly rabbit 8,023
More from around the web