As real scientists have observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those like Nick, wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 GT of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y +/- ?? ebbing and flowing between those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?
Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 power flux (watt is power, energy over time) increase between 1750 and 2011, 260 years, was 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo RF reflects 100 W/m^2 +/- 30 (can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/- 8. Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.
One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2) perpetual loop w/o work, 3) cold to hot w/o work, 4) doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses considered by the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming. Of course Trenberth says they are wrong because their results are not confirmed by the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.
Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.
As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.
BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.

One thing about corporations, large and small, is that they have their own internal conflicts, disorganization and inefficiencies however monolithic they may look from the outside. They also have to balance actions and tactics giving consideration to a wide range of disparate actors: national and subnational governments and their agencies, competitors, customers and even their own shareholders and employees in addition to the citizenry of the countries in which they operate.

Second, I expressed my displeasure with the AGU before it reached its wishy-washy decision. I think I’ll send them another email now.

Third, one thing about corporations, large and small, is that they have their own internal conflicts, disorganization and inefficiencies however they may look from the outside, and they have to balance actions and tactics with respect to a wide range of disparate actors, ranging from national and subnational governments and their agencies, to competitors, customers and even their own shareholders and employees as well as the citizenry of the countries in which they operate.

While the U.S. may be an exception among Western democracies (and Citizens United didn’t help), to portray corporations as near-unstoppable juggernauts would be a major error.

A commonly expressed target is reduction BY 80% or TO 20% reliance by 2050. 80% reduction by 2050 is potentially in line with a 2 C peak warming, given some post-2050 sequestration, and is probably close to the best we can hope for anymore.

My understanding is that this is the position Sanders had taken. But I have not looked closely, as the current election is hard for me to even think about and I’ve been avoiding most of it outside TX-21.

Could you verify whether it is TO 80% or BY 80%?

(By the way, everybody please support the fellow who is running against Lamar Smith here in TX-21, Tom Wakely, who is definitely a climate hawk. See more at http://www.wakely2016.com)