You have not offered valid critique. We've discussed why your quotations were irrelevant. My position is really not controversial here. This is like saying that Einstein 1905 ended the scientific debate on aether theory. There is no cosmic incompressible light-bearing medium, and any aspiring replacement theory will need to account for all the same observations. Similarly, we have ruled out scenarios which do not include AGW, and any competing theory will need to account for a large amount of excess heat being retained by the Earth's atmosphere. If you cannot specifically identify the unproven element of the CO2 hypothesis then you have no substantiative criticism to make. Again, if you want to say it's aliens, at least that would be some sort of argument. Even a dishonest argument would be something. Refusing to even take up the issue is cowardly, intellectually dishonest, and boring.
The atmosphere is indeed opaque at the IR band. The effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 is to raise the effective top-of-atmosphere by increasing the extent of the CO2-rich region of the atmosphere. This lengthens the mean path taken by a given photon leaving the Earth, which has the effect of trapping heat near the surface. Your objection was valid before ~1950, before we made better observations of the upper atmosphere. Generally speaking you might want to consider that any objection you can think of has probably occurred to other people. Cherry-picking outlier years like 1998 is juvenile. And no, I'm not terribly impressed by another one of Lamar Smith's witch hunts. If you have a journal citation which examines the issue do provide it.
You actually have no idea whether or not I'm making a broad statement. Which is why you're strenuously avoiding discussing the evidence for this theory. I would be ecstatic to engage in some critique of the subject, or even fanciful speculation about what might invalidate AGW -- aliens sucking energy from the stratosphere is unlikely, but that at least would be some kind of alternate explanation. You have instead seized on the first set of vaguely-applicable quotations you could find, and you pretend that this represents a real understanding of the topic. If you want to critique the science, let's by all means examine the evidence. We can talk about, for instance, the many reasons why AGW was considered debunked between 1896 and 1950, and why those were overturned, and speculate about what observations might reverse the balance of evidence. You bring the objections, I'll bring the citations, and we can split the bar tab, how's it sound?
And by the way, someone telling you that you are wrong is not trying to "silence you". I'm sure I would prefer if you would find more substantiative arguments, but your evasions are pretty transparent.
He did not claim to invent the Internet. The people that did invent the Internet said they had no earlier or more tireless supporter in Congress. The government did invent the Internet in the form of ARPANET, irrespective of whatever your ideology says. I like the BBS comparison because it's a terrible argument for you, it's as relevant to the subject as the iPhone.
You continue to be incorrect about the nature of scientific debate. Scientific debate is not "this measurement isn't accurate," nor is it "our models aren't accurate". Scientific debate is an issue with the theory, and it's almost always expressed as a competing theory. The creation of the IPCC represents the academic community being sufficiently convinced that there would be catastrophic warming to do something about it.
. The first IPCC report even explicitly stated that the warming for the past 100 years was within the realm of natural variability
That was true at the time. Since then the warming signal has become clearly evident in the temperature record. The lag in the signal was expected, although at the time of Keeling's publication the computer power really didn't exist to be able to give strong estimates about what would happen, several predictions were made along the lines of "n degrees in 50 years" that have proved accurate. But why don't you demonstrate that you know who Keeling was, why his work was important, and if you don't think that it was a conclusive statement on the subject, maybe you can say why not. Hopefully with references to primary sources.
The scientific debate over the theory of AGW is over. There is no competing explanation for AGW and it is unlikely that any will ever be advanced. The central tenets can be considered proven. That you think that there has been some inconsistency in my position is your misconception. Statements about modeling are not in themselves statements about the theory used to construct the model. If I have an epidemiological model of the spread of Ebola which happens to be inaccurate, this does not mean that the germ theory of disease is wrong. There has been nearly twenty years of research into modeling since the first IPCC report, and on the empirical side the warming signal is now strongly established. Your quotations therefore continue to be irrelevant to the topic.
Science consists of multiple claims with multiple levels of support. I've been quite specific about which claims are considered settled. Your quotes did not address these. That you do not know why they are irrelevant is because you've never studied the subject. The theory is not unshakable, but you do not know the evidence and therefore cannot say which parts are solidly supported and which are less so. The good news is that there are a number of observations which would invalidate the theory completely. The bad news is that most of them have been ruled out already. Which brings us back to the subject line.
My statement was, and is factually correct. You are attempting to create a nuance of "literal" creation where my statement does not change if the statement from Gore is figurative (as he later clarified) or literal (as you are attempting to attribute to my words).
He was not being figurative, nor was he claiming to have created it himself, and Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf backed his statement. Referring to Gore's claim to creating the internet is a lie of construction; he never did so, figuratively or otherwise. He did lead the legislative efforts, as BK and VC describe.
That you bring up BBSs is ludicrous in the context of a discussion of ARPANET. That happened much later. I cannot believe that your definition of a private company would stretch to include AT&T. Point of sale systems also did not use ARPANET. IBM and other mainframe manufacturers of the era sold primarily to public or publicly funded entities. Even private microcomputers were rare. You don't get to just list every private contribution to some networking-related topic from any era and claim that as evidence against the government involvement in the creation of the Internet.
Was I a bit generous with HTTP? Again, you _interpret_ a statement to be what you want instead of what I said. httpd != http.
There is no interpretation of what you said which is correct. The HTTP protocol was invented by Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN. Since its public release it has been managed by a consortium. However, the httpd web server was also created at CERN (public) and saw further development at NCSA (public) before being released as Apache.
Your "statist" insults are juvenile. Whether or not the government should have funded the Internet, it did, and claiming otherwise is a falsehood. Whatever arguments you have against the government are not well served by distorting their role, for good or for ill.
You're narrowing your claim from the very big topic AGW to "CO2-induced climate change".
To a first approximation, these terms are synonymous.
All this talk about "settled science" is bullshit.
The effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 on equilibrium temperatures has been settled for decades. The H2O feedback effect has also held up over the same period of time. The exact rate of change is an interesting question, especially as it needs to account for human activity. That the Earth will warm is as certain as sunrise, and that this CO2-induced warming is overwhelmingly caused by human activity is similarly not in dispute. If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with and we will find you the appropriate citations.
How would you know? What of the major papers on the topic have you read? Where exactly did all these researchers go wrong?
I've read textbooks and primary sources. The climate papers pre-1950 are a small enough set to read exhaustively, and the more recent important papers will tend to be available freely online. Your ad hominems carry little scientific weight, but feel free to support your position with citations from the scientific literature.
The IPCC does absolutely say that the overwhelming majority of CO2-induced climate change is due to human influence, and this fact has not been scientifically controversial for several decades. Previously, of course, it was extremely controversial, at least up until the early 1950s. Arrhenius' 1896 paper on CO2-induced warming was considered debunked for decades and you can find atmospheric science textbooks of that era which explicitly assign a negligible role to carbon dioxide. The overall consensus shifted over a period of two decades, depending on how you want to interpret various currents in the research. We can certainly say that by the time that the IPCC was founded AGW was "settled science", but Keeling's work was more or less the final nail in the coffin. I am sure that I would be interested in an argument to the contrary which was strongly supported by citations.
I have certainly not altered any statement of yours. You referred to a claim of Mr. Gore, and I showed that this claim was a misrepresentation. If you're upset by that, I can only suggest that you not make false statements.
What we can say about DARPANET was that the DoD instigated the project and funded a number of companies that worked on developing it: among others, you may recall the name Multics. Similarly, NACA/NASA projects have led (eventually) to the development of private spaceflight. Militaries generally tend to drive research, or at least engineering -- not exclusively, of course, but they have a lot of money to throw around to solve problems that private industry doesn't necessarily have.
Consumers of Networking technology were the driving force behind the mass adoption of TCP/IP
Public universities and government facilities, yes. You'll recall computers were rather expensive toys, which is kinda the common theme here: where there is massive NRE to develop a technology, it rarely makes "cents" for private industry to do so. Bell Labs was also the product of a government-granted monopoly, and while AT&T was never officially required to run Bell Labs as a research facility, that was certainly the expectation. It was also finally shut down because it was not profitable.
HTTP was developed by consortium
Tim Berners-Lee will be surprised to learn this.
Your view of history is simply inaccurate. It's valid to speculate about what might have happened if the government had not been involved, but that's not what happened. Unix, HTTP, AT&T, SCP, and other related acronyms might be better examples for your argument (unlikely), but we were talking about the Internet, not the Web. That people later built a commercial platform on top of a government-funded network does not diminish the role of the government in creating that network.
Projection, ad hominem and threats. I suppose I should have expected as much. There are a number of freely available textbooks on earth and atmospheric science, and MIT as well as other institutions have most of their course materials available online. Additionally, the notable primary sources are also typically available online in PDF form. This site provides a basic overview of the chronology of the science, which may better help you understand how we know what we know. If at some point you acquire some foundational knowledge of the subject, I am sure I would be happy to discuss it.
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countryâ(TM)s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn:
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development...as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
source. I don't know why people were so gleeful to misrepresent Gore's words on the subject then, but it's just bizarre to hear it repeated here of all places nearly two decades later. Then again, you're also seemingly arguing that ARPANET wasn't a DoD project, so perhaps this confusion is expected.
That you personally are unaware of the bulk of geophysical research over the last two centuries does not mean that we are wandering adrift in a sea of unknown forces. We've known since the 19th Century that many human activities produced large amounts of "carbonic acid", and after Tyndall's experiments in the 1860s we knew the thermal properties of the various atmospheric gases. The CO2-mediated theory of climate change was proposed in 1896. The idea was arguably obvious then, and remains equally obvious: an increase in the amount of a greenhouse gas will, ceteris paribus, raise the equilibrium temperature. If you don't like it, find another way to transfer heat off this rock.
I do not know what your confusion is between hydrocarbon exploration and science generally. One has to assume that you know nothing about how either is done. You will likely be surprised to know that for the last century one of the most important drivers of atmospheric and oceanographic research has been the US military -- which you'll note is the opposite of a left-wing hippie organization, one that has an extremely keen interest in the world and little tolerance for bullshit. Which would be why the Pentagon keeps trying to insist that Republicans take climate change seriously.
Your argument that, "because individuals cannot meaningfully affect the climate, we should not collectively care about the issue," is very amusing, but you're probably going to want another one.
You have no idea what is or is not proven about AGW and you've actively avoided that information. The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling. The best part about debating deniers is that they have no idea what they're even saying. That's also the worst part.
All models are wrong, some are useful. You do not know enough to know whether these models are useful. You have a disdain for truth and no interest in science.
The alternative is people dying in the street. Which if you are okay with that, I will respect that at least as a consistent political principle, but let's do be quite clear about what is being advocated here.
No one alleging widespread voting fraud has ever been able to substantiate that claim. To a first approximation, it does not happen in this country. No one has ever lost money betting on the credulity of the American public, but it's surprising to see so many people willing to believe something that is literally the opposite of reality.
If you don't like the comparison you should not use the same argument. No one is trying to refute your point, it's just as relevant to the topic as the price of tea in China. Why don't you find an adult and have them explain this to you.
Your argument is almost exactly identical to someone saying, "But Hillary won the popular vote!" That's not what counts. That's intentionally not what counts. Your side lost, get over it.
And what global warming research was being done before 1960?
Well, the idea that atmospheric gases absorbed heat at different rates was established by Tyndall in the 1850s. Arrhenius developed the idea of CO2-mediated climate change in 1896, and although this work was more or less discredited upon release, there were a number of papers published in the earlier half of the 20th Century which implied that [1] the Earth's climate was not inherently stable, and [2] that raised doubts about the ability of the Earth to absorb excess carbon. These gradually reestablished AGW as a mainline scientific theory. The "nail in the coffin" was Keeling 1959, which was the first paper to establish a baseline observation for global atmospheric carbon and subsequently show that the level was climbing.
Are you claiming global warming was being studied in the 1880s, not just the mechanisms? Really?
Climate change has been an ongoing topic of research for almost 200 years. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "not just the mechanisms". We do have many temperature records from that time. We could talk about what was known at various different periods, if you liked.
It's deeply immoral to perpetuate the hoax that is AGW. The more the data is studied, the less trustworthy the proponents' manipulations appear.
There are no credible alternate theories. We would need another mechanism to transfer heat to space besides radiation. I don't get the impression you have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of this theory.
Your argument is interesting. I think that your description of the profit cycle is being undermined by automation, however. It seems predicated on the idea that labor is the source of capital/wealth.
But to a business owner, the best way to increase your take-home pay (profit) is not by taking home the money saved due to a tax cut. It's from reinvesting that saved money into the business so your business can grow.
Or you're Jeff Bezos. At some point the concept of take-home pay gets hazy. Perhaps you can extrapolate a bit.
If you don't mind, I would also appreciate your position on capital gains/investment taxes and/or estate/death taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
You have not offered valid critique. We've discussed why your quotations were irrelevant. My position is really not controversial here. This is like saying that Einstein 1905 ended the scientific debate on aether theory. There is no cosmic incompressible light-bearing medium, and any aspiring replacement theory will need to account for all the same observations. Similarly, we have ruled out scenarios which do not include AGW, and any competing theory will need to account for a large amount of excess heat being retained by the Earth's atmosphere. If you cannot specifically identify the unproven element of the CO2 hypothesis then you have no substantiative criticism to make. Again, if you want to say it's aliens, at least that would be some sort of argument. Even a dishonest argument would be something. Refusing to even take up the issue is cowardly, intellectually dishonest, and boring.
The atmosphere is indeed opaque at the IR band. The effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 is to raise the effective top-of-atmosphere by increasing the extent of the CO2-rich region of the atmosphere. This lengthens the mean path taken by a given photon leaving the Earth, which has the effect of trapping heat near the surface. Your objection was valid before ~1950, before we made better observations of the upper atmosphere. Generally speaking you might want to consider that any objection you can think of has probably occurred to other people. Cherry-picking outlier years like 1998 is juvenile. And no, I'm not terribly impressed by another one of Lamar Smith's witch hunts. If you have a journal citation which examines the issue do provide it.
You actually have no idea whether or not I'm making a broad statement. Which is why you're strenuously avoiding discussing the evidence for this theory. I would be ecstatic to engage in some critique of the subject, or even fanciful speculation about what might invalidate AGW -- aliens sucking energy from the stratosphere is unlikely, but that at least would be some kind of alternate explanation. You have instead seized on the first set of vaguely-applicable quotations you could find, and you pretend that this represents a real understanding of the topic. If you want to critique the science, let's by all means examine the evidence. We can talk about, for instance, the many reasons why AGW was considered debunked between 1896 and 1950, and why those were overturned, and speculate about what observations might reverse the balance of evidence. You bring the objections, I'll bring the citations, and we can split the bar tab, how's it sound?
And by the way, someone telling you that you are wrong is not trying to "silence you". I'm sure I would prefer if you would find more substantiative arguments, but your evasions are pretty transparent.
He did not claim to invent the Internet. The people that did invent the Internet said they had no earlier or more tireless supporter in Congress. The government did invent the Internet in the form of ARPANET, irrespective of whatever your ideology says. I like the BBS comparison because it's a terrible argument for you, it's as relevant to the subject as the iPhone.
You continue to be incorrect about the nature of scientific debate. Scientific debate is not "this measurement isn't accurate," nor is it "our models aren't accurate". Scientific debate is an issue with the theory, and it's almost always expressed as a competing theory. The creation of the IPCC represents the academic community being sufficiently convinced that there would be catastrophic warming to do something about it.
. The first IPCC report even explicitly stated that the warming for the past 100 years was within the realm of natural variability
That was true at the time. Since then the warming signal has become clearly evident in the temperature record. The lag in the signal was expected, although at the time of Keeling's publication the computer power really didn't exist to be able to give strong estimates about what would happen, several predictions were made along the lines of "n degrees in 50 years" that have proved accurate. But why don't you demonstrate that you know who Keeling was, why his work was important, and if you don't think that it was a conclusive statement on the subject, maybe you can say why not. Hopefully with references to primary sources.
The scientific debate over the theory of AGW is over. There is no competing explanation for AGW and it is unlikely that any will ever be advanced. The central tenets can be considered proven. That you think that there has been some inconsistency in my position is your misconception. Statements about modeling are not in themselves statements about the theory used to construct the model. If I have an epidemiological model of the spread of Ebola which happens to be inaccurate, this does not mean that the germ theory of disease is wrong. There has been nearly twenty years of research into modeling since the first IPCC report, and on the empirical side the warming signal is now strongly established. Your quotations therefore continue to be irrelevant to the topic.
Science consists of multiple claims with multiple levels of support. I've been quite specific about which claims are considered settled. Your quotes did not address these. That you do not know why they are irrelevant is because you've never studied the subject. The theory is not unshakable, but you do not know the evidence and therefore cannot say which parts are solidly supported and which are less so. The good news is that there are a number of observations which would invalidate the theory completely. The bad news is that most of them have been ruled out already. Which brings us back to the subject line.
My statement was, and is factually correct. You are attempting to create a nuance of "literal" creation where my statement does not change if the statement from Gore is figurative (as he later clarified) or literal (as you are attempting to attribute to my words).
He was not being figurative, nor was he claiming to have created it himself, and Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf backed his statement. Referring to Gore's claim to creating the internet is a lie of construction; he never did so, figuratively or otherwise. He did lead the legislative efforts, as BK and VC describe.
That you bring up BBSs is ludicrous in the context of a discussion of ARPANET. That happened much later. I cannot believe that your definition of a private company would stretch to include AT&T. Point of sale systems also did not use ARPANET. IBM and other mainframe manufacturers of the era sold primarily to public or publicly funded entities. Even private microcomputers were rare. You don't get to just list every private contribution to some networking-related topic from any era and claim that as evidence against the government involvement in the creation of the Internet.
Was I a bit generous with HTTP? Again, you _interpret_ a statement to be what you want instead of what I said. httpd != http.
There is no interpretation of what you said which is correct. The HTTP protocol was invented by Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN. Since its public release it has been managed by a consortium. However, the httpd web server was also created at CERN (public) and saw further development at NCSA (public) before being released as Apache.
Your "statist" insults are juvenile. Whether or not the government should have funded the Internet, it did, and claiming otherwise is a falsehood. Whatever arguments you have against the government are not well served by distorting their role, for good or for ill.
You're narrowing your claim from the very big topic AGW to "CO2-induced climate change".
To a first approximation, these terms are synonymous.
All this talk about "settled science" is bullshit.
The effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 on equilibrium temperatures has been settled for decades. The H2O feedback effect has also held up over the same period of time. The exact rate of change is an interesting question, especially as it needs to account for human activity. That the Earth will warm is as certain as sunrise, and that this CO2-induced warming is overwhelmingly caused by human activity is similarly not in dispute. If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with and we will find you the appropriate citations.
How would you know? What of the major papers on the topic have you read? Where exactly did all these researchers go wrong?
I've read textbooks and primary sources. The climate papers pre-1950 are a small enough set to read exhaustively, and the more recent important papers will tend to be available freely online. Your ad hominems carry little scientific weight, but feel free to support your position with citations from the scientific literature.
The IPCC does absolutely say that the overwhelming majority of CO2-induced climate change is due to human influence, and this fact has not been scientifically controversial for several decades. Previously, of course, it was extremely controversial, at least up until the early 1950s. Arrhenius' 1896 paper on CO2-induced warming was considered debunked for decades and you can find atmospheric science textbooks of that era which explicitly assign a negligible role to carbon dioxide. The overall consensus shifted over a period of two decades, depending on how you want to interpret various currents in the research. We can certainly say that by the time that the IPCC was founded AGW was "settled science", but Keeling's work was more or less the final nail in the coffin. I am sure that I would be interested in an argument to the contrary which was strongly supported by citations.
I have certainly not altered any statement of yours. You referred to a claim of Mr. Gore, and I showed that this claim was a misrepresentation. If you're upset by that, I can only suggest that you not make false statements.
What we can say about DARPANET was that the DoD instigated the project and funded a number of companies that worked on developing it: among others, you may recall the name Multics. Similarly, NACA/NASA projects have led (eventually) to the development of private spaceflight. Militaries generally tend to drive research, or at least engineering -- not exclusively, of course, but they have a lot of money to throw around to solve problems that private industry doesn't necessarily have.
Consumers of Networking technology were the driving force behind the mass adoption of TCP/IP
Public universities and government facilities, yes. You'll recall computers were rather expensive toys, which is kinda the common theme here: where there is massive NRE to develop a technology, it rarely makes "cents" for private industry to do so. Bell Labs was also the product of a government-granted monopoly, and while AT&T was never officially required to run Bell Labs as a research facility, that was certainly the expectation. It was also finally shut down because it was not profitable.
HTTP was developed by consortium
Tim Berners-Lee will be surprised to learn this.
Your view of history is simply inaccurate. It's valid to speculate about what might have happened if the government had not been involved, but that's not what happened. Unix, HTTP, AT&T, SCP, and other related acronyms might be better examples for your argument (unlikely), but we were talking about the Internet, not the Web. That people later built a commercial platform on top of a government-funded network does not diminish the role of the government in creating that network.
Projection, ad hominem and threats. I suppose I should have expected as much. There are a number of freely available textbooks on earth and atmospheric science, and MIT as well as other institutions have most of their course materials available online. Additionally, the notable primary sources are also typically available online in PDF form. This site provides a basic overview of the chronology of the science, which may better help you understand how we know what we know. If at some point you acquire some foundational knowledge of the subject, I am sure I would be happy to discuss it.
Al Gore:
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countryâ(TM)s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn:
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development...as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
source. I don't know why people were so gleeful to misrepresent Gore's words on the subject then, but it's just bizarre to hear it repeated here of all places nearly two decades later. Then again, you're also seemingly arguing that ARPANET wasn't a DoD project, so perhaps this confusion is expected.
Probably because those two things aren't causally linked.
That you personally are unaware of the bulk of geophysical research over the last two centuries does not mean that we are wandering adrift in a sea of unknown forces. We've known since the 19th Century that many human activities produced large amounts of "carbonic acid", and after Tyndall's experiments in the 1860s we knew the thermal properties of the various atmospheric gases. The CO2-mediated theory of climate change was proposed in 1896. The idea was arguably obvious then, and remains equally obvious: an increase in the amount of a greenhouse gas will, ceteris paribus, raise the equilibrium temperature. If you don't like it, find another way to transfer heat off this rock.
I do not know what your confusion is between hydrocarbon exploration and science generally. One has to assume that you know nothing about how either is done. You will likely be surprised to know that for the last century one of the most important drivers of atmospheric and oceanographic research has been the US military -- which you'll note is the opposite of a left-wing hippie organization, one that has an extremely keen interest in the world and little tolerance for bullshit. Which would be why the Pentagon keeps trying to insist that Republicans take climate change seriously.
Your argument that, "because individuals cannot meaningfully affect the climate, we should not collectively care about the issue," is very amusing, but you're probably going to want another one.
You have no idea what is or is not proven about AGW and you've actively avoided that information. The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling. The best part about debating deniers is that they have no idea what they're even saying. That's also the worst part.
All models are wrong, some are useful. You do not know enough to know whether these models are useful. You have a disdain for truth and no interest in science.
The alternative is people dying in the street. Which if you are okay with that, I will respect that at least as a consistent political principle, but let's do be quite clear about what is being advocated here.
No one alleging widespread voting fraud has ever been able to substantiate that claim. To a first approximation, it does not happen in this country. No one has ever lost money betting on the credulity of the American public, but it's surprising to see so many people willing to believe something that is literally the opposite of reality.
If you don't like the comparison you should not use the same argument. No one is trying to refute your point, it's just as relevant to the topic as the price of tea in China. Why don't you find an adult and have them explain this to you.
Incorrect, strawman, red herring. I'm disappointed, honestly.
Your argument is almost exactly identical to someone saying, "But Hillary won the popular vote!" That's not what counts. That's intentionally not what counts. Your side lost, get over it.
And what global warming research was being done before 1960?
Well, the idea that atmospheric gases absorbed heat at different rates was established by Tyndall in the 1850s. Arrhenius developed the idea of CO2-mediated climate change in 1896, and although this work was more or less discredited upon release, there were a number of papers published in the earlier half of the 20th Century which implied that [1] the Earth's climate was not inherently stable, and [2] that raised doubts about the ability of the Earth to absorb excess carbon. These gradually reestablished AGW as a mainline scientific theory. The "nail in the coffin" was Keeling 1959, which was the first paper to establish a baseline observation for global atmospheric carbon and subsequently show that the level was climbing.
Are you claiming global warming was being studied in the 1880s, not just the mechanisms? Really?
Climate change has been an ongoing topic of research for almost 200 years. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "not just the mechanisms". We do have many temperature records from that time. We could talk about what was known at various different periods, if you liked.
It's deeply immoral to perpetuate the hoax that is AGW. The more the data is studied, the less trustworthy the proponents' manipulations appear.
There are no credible alternate theories. We would need another mechanism to transfer heat to space besides radiation. I don't get the impression you have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of this theory.
Your argument is interesting. I think that your description of the profit cycle is being undermined by automation, however. It seems predicated on the idea that labor is the source of capital/wealth.
But to a business owner, the best way to increase your take-home pay (profit) is not by taking home the money saved due to a tax cut. It's from reinvesting that saved money into the business so your business can grow.
Or you're Jeff Bezos. At some point the concept of take-home pay gets hazy. Perhaps you can extrapolate a bit.
If you don't mind, I would also appreciate your position on capital gains/investment taxes and/or estate/death taxes.