Okay, I give up: what “hiatus?”

“As far as Brian’s analogy goes, an air conditioning unit employs NONE of the factors being discussed, nor does it relate and is, in fact, exactly opposite of warming effect.”
You might want to study how differences between the moist and dry adiabatic lapse rate are related to latent heat of evaporation, its effect on climate, and how the sinking part of Hadley circulation, or foehn winds cause hot, dry weather conditions like are found in the American Southwest. If I had described my air conditioner as a heat pump warming the house in winter, would you have better understood? Do you think the physics changes between “heat pump” (pumping heat from outside to inside) and “air conditioning”(pumping heat from inside to outside) mode?

“Given that CO2, is more prevalent, it is labeled as the ‘guilty party’ in GW. Methane, however, pound for pound is 22X more GW than CO2 at trapping heat (greenhouse effect)” But given that CO2 is 400ppm but methane is less than 2ppm, it’s much less of a problem currently. If the clathrate gun bullet holes – http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0127-dozens-of-mysterious-new-craters-suspected-in-northern-russia/ – continue to grow exponentially, that will change.

“Earth’s temperature is determined, largely, by solar activity from our star.” “The sun warms our planet.” These are not equivalent statements. The sun warms our planet, and my air conditioner cools my house in summer(and in “heat pump” mode, with the cycle reversed, heats it); the thermostat determines the temperature, and CO2, with amplification from water vapor and cryosphere albedo feedbacks controls the earth’s temperature – much like a thermostat.

” Taxing corporate offenders of pollution has proven already to be fruitless as they are given ‘acceptable’ amounts allotted, to which they merely sell unused amounts to other offenders-” I think you’re conflating taxation with cap and trade. Cap and trade regulations worked well to reduce SO2 emissions from power plants and other industrial coal fired plants – and it was conceived by Reagan, delivered by Bush Sr. and praised by Bush Jr. They employed such a system to phase out lead in gasoline, cut chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting chemicals, and reduce sulfur pollution from power plants responsible for acid rain, all without undue cost. Not exactly “fruitless” endeavors

“Which government paves roads, educates, moves energy to the masses, or any other social program?” Nebraska DOR paves its own roads – there’s a Dirty Jobs segment where Mike joins a crew of state employees paving a section of road. Michael Mann got his AB in applied math&physics from University of California Berkeley, and has been on the faculty of the University of Virginia and Pennsylvania State University. And there are the examples of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Social Security Administration.

In science, manipulated data are almost never “lies.” If you can spot any climatologists or other scientists “lying” when they manipulate data, do be sure to complain then.

Er… ah… um, who ever claimed otherwise?

@#33
Being you are likely science based, it’s no wonder you have problems with English.
Good thing you are sitting down, I imagine the brain strain was a little much for you.
You cannot refute my valid point it’s the SUN that warms the earth, and if you peruse my original post again, you will discover, I made no reference to global warming(GW only adding to the average temperature of the earth, not the daily change of warmth), so perhaps, it is you who cannot follow other people’s talking points.
As far as Brian’s analogy goes, an air conditioning unit employs NONE of the factors being discussed, nor does it relate and is, in fact, exactly opposite of warming effect.
Also, I have little problem with science itself, merely the ignorance of so many who employ it and think they know it all.

‘Got an argument for that? Or just a boilerplate “government is the problem not the solution” libertarian assertion?’
Endless supply of arguments for that tbh. Every government is good at one thing, taking money. None of them are good at (or qualified to) do any service. Which government paves roads, educates, moves energy to the masses, or any other social program? These are all handled by companies and professionals financially rewarded by funding, supplied by tax payer’s money. Tax money is better left to the public to grow business and communities. Scrap the programs and shrink the government. Move away of social benefits (which aren’t benefiting society) and work on development of self sustaining public. Most of the money is wasted on war, mega corps bailouts, ridiculous programs (like bio-genetic engineering), secret programs and the many other non-voted for agendas used to waste these monies. Government isn’t the problem, but is certainly a factor.

‘Wow, straight to the old “people once believed wrong things, therefore I can dismiss anything anyone believes now” gambit’
If you hadn’t noticed, a very large percentage of scientists are aged, and jumping to the extreme conclusion of my statement, made to prove the point, that ‘credibility’ is given to a general acceptance of the masses of learned minds of the times, is a pathetic attempt to discredit. We are NOT smart, as a collective, especially when it comes to the ignorance of thinking, the masses have little worthy contribution to the well being of the planet as a whole. Greed, power, and lust for humanity’s control will always stifle scientific achievement and twist it into forms of destruction.

‘Maybe *you* can. It’s called cherrypicking, and it’s perfectly commonplace among pseudoscientific fringe thinkers.’
I said I can, not I do. Again, your inference is used only to mislead the ignorant and discredit my statement, performed poorly in my humble opinion, while attempting to make yourself feel better or smarter.

‘Why should anyone listen to you?’
I was thinking the same thing for your arguments. 🙂

Wow, straight to the old “people once believed wrong things, therefore I can dismiss anything anyone believes now” gambit. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

-“So many other factors are not being addressed…”

As some of *your own links* show, climate scientists are quite aware of these factors, study them every day, and take them into account in their hypotheses on climate change.

-“Imposing a tax on the North American general public .”

You mean on polluting industries. And we all get taxed for that pollution down the line anyway, in the economic and social blowback from the consequences of warming – a carbon tax puts the onus on the source of the problem.

-“… does not and will not solve the problem.”

Got an argument for that? Or just an assertion?

-“not I think those who receive these taxes would do anything(or could) to correct the issue with it anyways.”

Got an argument for that? Or just a boilerplate “government is the problem not the solution” libertarian assertion?

-“Give me data from ANY study and I can relate it ANY way(pro, neutral, or con) I choose.”

Maybe *you* can. It’s called cherrypicking, and it’s perfectly commonplace among pseudoscientific fringe thinkers. The scientists who actually study these things are bound by a number of factors to be more rigorous, and almost all of them disagree with your assertions. Why should anyone listen to you?