confirmed? In the face of very strong empirical evidence that the understood/accepted rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by mankind... in the face of a fundamental facet of basic physics, greenhouse effect warming... in the face of an irrefutable correlation between the current rise in temperature and the current rise in CO2 level... in the face of no other alternate causal link between the current warming and the current rise in CO2, other than rising CO2 attributed to mankind... just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?
care to expound on your most charged comment that, as you say, "politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed"? To clear up your double-entendre, are you suggesting that, (1) politicians are paying for a preconceived result/outcome... the result/outcome as predetermined by politicians; or, (2) politicians are paying for a result/outcome... one preconceived by "others"... and, if so, who/what are the others?
The science is suggesting carbon is a problem and politicians are devising plans to capitalize on that suggestion, emphaisis on capitalize not find resolutions. Of course, since they have moved ahead with plans it would hurt them dearly to have to reconsider.
which politicians, which plans and capitalize... how? Specificity will help your case here, Pliny... trundling on down the "New World Order" rhetoric path will not.
This latest cold blast from CERN is very disconcerting.
what do you interpret/declare from CERN/CLOUD presents a, as you say, "cold blast"? What do you interpret/declare from CERN/CLOUD is, as you say, "very disconcerting"?so... what... no Pliny reply to my first paragraph above? No Pliny reply advising on, "just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?
but would you support a price on carbon?
this (and your thread title phrasing) showcases your misunderstanding and real intent behind this thread. I won't suggest you're distorting or fabricating... you're simply parroting. You've bought into the false premise propagated by the denialMachine, that CERN/CLOUD and "climate science" reflect upon competing paths/pursuits. You've also bought into the false premise that the initial experiment results are something that either diminish or negate aspects of the AGW theory... however wildly (and falsely) extrapolated upon by the denialMachine towards the next (of many) future CLOUD phases/undertakings. Your suggestion that, as you say, "It's certainly got you screaming"... is silly and baseless... (besides replying to you, I've only posted a basic/minimalistic response to the only other MLW CERN/CLOUD reference to come forward... that, within another concurrently running MLW thread).
waldo, the temperature over the last century has risen 1.5 degrees fahrenheit(.8 degrees centigrade). And it isn't like the temperature is going to remain stable forever. I am not alarmed. I do appreciate your concern for the planet and expecting all of us to be more responsible for the environment. Good idea.
that you would couch your blinding lack of consideration/concern/"alarm" in terms of accepting your vaguely suggested future timeline of de facto temperature instability, is aided and abetted by your blindness to the current compressed period of accelerated and enhanced warming, a/the timeline(s) of projected warming and a comparative review/analysis of current to past warming
No, I would not support a price on carbon. As mentioned, it isn't the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas.
so... no cap&trade for Pliny. No tax÷nd for Pliny. And yet... you say you support reducing 'carbon emissions'. Is there a representative, understood and recognized practical mechanism, market based (or not), that would help assist a Pliny acknowledged support for reducing carbon emissions?
we haven't seen Mr. Wizard Pliny for some time now... perhaps Mr. Wizard should check out the significance of water vapour feedback on temperature, per increased CO2... and the relative short residual time of water vapour as compared to CO2
Slippy slidy politicians will work with you I'm sure. They are always looking for new sources of taxation.
without accepting your premise, just what types of politicians will work with the most selectively applied libertarian bent, anti-science Pliny... the guy who states he supports reducing carbon emissions?