Michael Ramirez for September 26, 2015

Ummmmmmm…. that would be VW. Unequivocally.

Is Mr. Ramirez also on the ballot? I guess not, as the ballot question includes a claim of doing actual good.

I don’t know, either one is way out in front when compared to Republican conservatives. Many of them don’t even believe that climate change even exists and they keep mining coal and fighting carbon regulation. What VW did should be OK with them, just trying to avoid “excessive” government regulation.

John LockeTalking to a liberal and making sense is like talking to a stop sign

The US is not a leader and the White House should not exaggerate. http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/21/top-greenest-countries-in-world/

There’s lots of reasons to conclude that (a) the climate is changing rapidly, and (b) the change is largely due to human actions. I haven’t yet seen a coherent counter argument. If you’ve got a good counter-argument, present it. If you don’t, then what’s your position?

“Liberals like science.”every thing past that was worthless.

Right!

Try speaking in FACTS not ‘sound bytes’.

Do you not know that the OCEAN is the largest repository of CO2 in the world? And when the ocean warms up, all gasses, including CO2 is driven from the water? So, how does this figure into your temperature not driving the percentage of CO2?

Back to my post on CO2 changing after the temperature changes, it becomes obvious when you understand that warmer water cannot hold more gas than cooler water. The maximum amount of gas, CO2, O2, N2, can be dissolved in water at 4 degrees centigrade. When it is warmer water, the gasses are driven from the water. Check your physics, man.

As I said, I still haven’t seen a coherent counter argument. Still haven’t. Thanks, martens and Baslim, your posts are always informed and informative.

Another graduate of the Michelle Bachmann School of aluminum foil hat wearers

I am fully acquainted, MR martens. However, the facts remain. CO2 will STILL be driven from the water when the temperature rises. Check the facts, man, check the facts. Study chemistry and physics.

Broken record. Try giving facts instead of sound bytes.

Broken record. Try giving facts instead of sound bytes.

Go back the to the ‘cause and effect’ law. NOTHING can happen as an ‘effect’ before the ‘cause’ happens. Period.

But, the global warming alarmists are not looking at the ice core records, or are refusing to listen. The temperature changes first, then the CO2 changes second!

How difficult is it to understand that?

I’m not a physicist or a biochemist, but somehow I can still follow the arguments Baslim and martens present. They don’t seem all that complex.

My apologies, Dr. Ms. Martens. I made an assumption.

You said, “Nothing in the ice core data invalidates the fact that increasing CO2 in an atmosphere (cause) will by itself result an increase in temperature. That is absolute, demonstrable scientific truth.”

As for the CO2 causing the temperature to rise and being ‘demonstrable scientific truth, take another look at the ice core records. If the CO2 cause was demonstrated in the lab, why, oh why, was it not demonstrated in the giant ’laboratory of earth’ over the last 70,000 years? Why did the temperature turn DOWN several times when the CO2 was still going UP? Why didn’t the CO2 rise continue to drive the temperature up higher? Why did the cycle stay the same all the time when Man had ZERO effect on the climate?

Sorry, buy I am still staying true to the superior law of cause and effect.

’Nuff said. I am done.