There's no reason to. College students are capable of paying for it themselves and as you note, there is a "severe notion" of people paying their own way, which I think is a good notion to have. College education is a privilege. Who's going to pay for "free" college education?
Instead, we've seen the forces of anti-intellectualism and greed enjoy too much success at dismantling public spending on college, out of some moral notion that people should pay their way on this matter, and for the sake of balancing budgets that are not in crisis.
Colleges are breeding grounds for a variety of anti-intellectual beliefs too (for example, multi-culturalism and anti-business types). And a lot of that particular anti-intellectualism was funded pulbicly.
We don't ask high school students to pay their way, why is college so different?
College students are adults and hence, responsible for their own actions.
I hear tuition has taken quite a jump in recent years.
Easily explained by all the public money dumped uncritically into education and student loan subsidies. It's pumped up demand and the prices that students are willing to pay for the chance to pick up a degree.
who can't be reasonably expected to have yet held a job that pays enough to afford college
That's a different problem. The minimum wage laws perversely have led to a population of young adults in their 20s who haven't held a job in their life.
For example, by the time I hit college, I had worked part time for three years and managed to save enough to cover my first two years of public college. Summer jobs got me the rest of the way. If government policy hadn't driven up the cost of college since and minimum wage driven up the cost of employing risky students, modern students would be able to do the same.
and for the sake of balancing budgets that are not in crisis
Don't be an idiot. You don't wait till your finances are in crisis before you do something. Even for a budget that is well in the black, there is plenty of work that one can do to improve it.
The US federal budget is pretty close to crisis. It's got a lot of pure shit in it, such as the educational subsidies we've been talking about, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or defense contracting. I would at least halve it first (including so-called mandatory spending), before considering any sort of tax revenue increase. Else any increase in tax revenue will just result in a corresponding increase in poor spending decisions.
"Inadvertent climate modification" was the original name and one that has some real meaning to it. It describes human activities that change climate unintentionally. It's quite straightforward and descriptive like any scientific term should be. "Climate change" OTOH has no descriptive power aside from describing changes in climate. Human sources are only one possibility. It's also worth noting that your cited article uses "global warming" in the very title. So global warming has been kicking around for a long time as well.
But most people who study so-called "climate change" actually study human-caused global warming. So why the use of an inappropriate, undescriptive term?
That's where the propaganda aspect comes in. There are some ridiculous fallacies being passed off as argument, particularly the "extreme weather" thing which blames all extreme weather on global warming even though nobody has a clue whether extreme weather gets changed at all. It's classic observer bias where you blame whatever happens on the fad environmental danger of the decade.
But by kicking around this vague label, you can incorporate any weird weather in as a "change" in climate due to human activity. Soothsayers and chicken entrails readers couldn't do any better. So how about we actually use honest language and honest debate, rather than just skipping forward to the "spend the money" stage?
That's solidly in the "big deal" territory when you multiply it by the number of storms.
There's somewhere around fifty to hundred trillion dollars in real estate assets. Tens of thousands of dollars time tens of thousands of storms is perhaps a billion dollars a year. The small storms are insignificant. It's the outlier big storms that have the huge price tag. I don't see any evidence that those become more likely because of global warming, or for that matter, that greater storm strength is more significant than US flood insurance policy (which encourages a lot of moral hazard, particularly, pricey construction in flood prone areas).
What do you think will happen once the energy supply can no longer meet the demand?
Energy is not fossil fuels. We would switch to alternatives. For example, there has been a massive shift in US power generation from coal plants to natural gas plants over a few short years. The economy is very agile and already adapts quickly to modest changes in the cost of fossil fuels.
Ethanol subsidy is not about climate change, it's about corn lobby flexing its muscles.
Sure it is. That was the primary excuse for the ethanol subsidies after all. Any other proposed fix will suffer from the same corruption. For example, there has been massive subsidies for wind and solar power throughout the world, particularly in the developed world and China. These have made a lot of money for businesses with the right connections, but it hasn't actually reduced generation of greenhouse gases.
The US's switch to natural gas has at least temporarily reduced US carbon dioxide emissions by a substantial amount which turns out more effective than burning money on renewable energy.
So, does America provide a model for how to relocate huge swathes of refugees?
Of course it does. But you have to actually understand the history to a modest degree rather than just ridiculously caricature it. Tens of millions of people came to the New World and found a home without violence.
The online merriam-webster isn't exactly the "final word" on vocabulary usage. However, their "def'n 3" ("compel") fits pretty well.
No, it doesn't. Hence, my point of providing the link.
And again, what "peaceful" migrations into pre-inhabited New World areas are you talking about?
For example, immigration into the US from about 1780 through to the present day, in particular, the migration of people to New York City, Chicago, LA, and other urban areas of the US.
Since I see little historical evidence for common "everyone's nice to one another" mass migrations into otherwise inhabited areas
The huge migrations into the New World are an excellent counterexample. The US, Brazil, Argentina, and a number of other countries had vast, peaceful migrations over a period of centuries.
given that CO2 absorbs more heat, and given that we're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, what other outcome could there be?
The atmosphere could get cooler, for example, because there's some larger effect cooling the atmosphere. It is after all a complex thing.
Here's how I'd do it. Observation: the Earth's atmosphere appears to be getting warming, CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing, and humanity is known to generate a lot of CO2. Hypothesis: human-generated CO2 and perhaps other human activities are primarily responsible for the observed increase in global mean temperature.
Even a storm that kills no one will typically do tens of thousands of dollars in property damage.
That's solidly in the "no big deal" territory.
especially since we'll have to switch soon anyway, since fossil fuels are running out.
Well then, let's switch when we have to. There's no real advantage to anticipating the end of fossil fuels.
Even if you don't hear about a storm, drought or other climate-related problem, you will still pay for it in your taxes, your utility bills, and your grocery bill.
And I bet I already pay more for alleged fixes to climate-related problems, like the US's huge ethanol subsidy than global warming would ever cost.
are you seriously suggesting that continental drift - which tops at about 10 cm annually - could possibly explain any kind of changes in climate in the recorded history, which, at about 6000 years long
Supposedly the closing of the Bering Strait is responsible for the current ice age state of Earth over the past few million years.
When China's grain belt moves north across the border into Siberia
That one is particularly easy since they'll grow food then in both China and Siberia. More food for everyone. The "grain belt" is not some narrow strip of territory. In North America, they grow grain from Canada all the way into northern Mexico. From this map, I see wheat grown from the equator to 60 degrees in lattitude.
China will be able to switch to different varieties, if the climate really does change. Those varieties are already growing now in warmer places, both dryer and wetter. Also the warmer it gets, the more places that will be able to grow two crops of wheat a year.
It's not going to involve nukes, but basic changing of crops to things that are better adapted to the current state of climate.
You do realize that the colonization of the New World "empty frontier" required the largest mass-genocides in history
No, I don't "realize" this. Neither do you. It's just another entertaining myth.
Sure, most land at some point was taken from someone else. But that has nothing to do with enabling mass migration. Now, in the developed world we'd rent or sell land to newcomers rather than get into a big unpleasant fight. In the undeveloped world, sure there's a good chance that they'd get into a big fight, but that sort of thing will happen anyway whether there is AGW related catastrophe or not.
There's also the facts that carbon dioxide absorbs heat, combustion engines put out carbon dioxide, and there is a lot of combustion going on. A hypothesis needs to be consistent with those facts, climate change is the only hypothesis that I've heard that can do that. What's contradictory about that?
Climate change explains why we're doing a lot of combustion or that there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The evidence you continue to leave out is that the Earth is to some degree warming (as least according to our measurements). You aren't explaining anything without that missing evidence.
Wow, thats about as much intellectual drivel as I would expect out of a political prisoner fresh out of labour-camp.
I see you fit the profile quite nicely. Let's take a look.
Climate Change is an acknowledgment that the Earth has many interconnected systems that can be aversely or even positively affected by changes to the environment.
The word I was criticizing was "accuracy". This bullshit isn't accurate. Anthropogenic global warming is accurate. It describes the key characteristics of the phenomena, namely, that it is man-caused and that it is a global warming.
Also a tacit acknowledgement that once it occurs its nearly impossible to reverse. It just so happens that it also nullifies any unfortunate and misguided pseudo-intellectualism vaulted or supported by the "Global Warming" meme of the 80s.
That's an awful lot of pointless verbiage for a supposedly "tacit" acknowledgement. No, there is no such acknowledgement. "Climate change" simply means a change in climate. All the rest of your claim is completely unfounded and not implied by the label.
the best you can do is question the motives of "scientists" to prove your point
But of course. There are trillions of dollars riding on convincing the public that AGW is dire enough that we need to spend a lot of money. That's many times what you'd need to completely buy the field of climatology.
So.... extra CO2 is OK because the Earth might have some extreme weather up its sleeve to correct for man's emissions?
Question: Isn't "extreme weather" bad/harmful?
It's not particularly harmful. You hear about the few storms that kill hundreds or thousands of people. You don't hear about the tens of thousands of storms that don't.
And it remains a key problem that we're advocating expensive mitigation efforts for carbon emissions without having a good reason for them.
How the heck are cities evidence of rapid population movement?
Look at most New World Cities. Except for a few that started prior to Columbus (like Mexico City and Quito), they're all less than five centuries old. In addition, most of the growth of these cities has happened in the last century. So we have massive movement of people recently in the sort of time frames necessary for any sort of catastrophic climate change.
Global warming and cooling aren't a thing, climate change, however, is. Hot places get hotter, cold places get colder, and the bits in the middle will get considerably worse than both combined with the colliding weather fronts.
And what in the world gives you the idea that this sort of "climate change" is going on? Increases in greenhouse gases lead to some degree of global warming not hot gets hotter, cold gets colder. WE have enough trouble debating this issue without imaginary theories coming in.
Oddly, this is more stable than the North-east of America, that place gets whacked silly with storms, and it will get considerably worse in the next decade, not even century.
The Gulf of Mexico provides warmth and moisture which is what you need for exciting storms such as the north east region of the US probably has seen for millions of years.
Katrina was a freak, but that last catastrophe of a storm is just progressive weather change now.
That part of the world sees dozens of such cyclones every year. There was nothing odd about Katrina other than a city happened to be in the way.
There is even a chance of another mini ice-age in the north areas again.
Apparently, glacial periods have been the norm for many millions of years. Unless we do something radical, say like dumping massive quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or greatly widening the Bering Strait, we will see another full-blown glacial advance.
Expecting the populations of entire nations and continents to just up-and-move over a few decades because habitable ranges have shifted (collapsing food and water supplies in once-fertile regions) doesn't play out so well in current geopolitics.
Come on. You have evidence of massive and rapid movement of population (the cities you refer to), and yet you still claim it can't happen. Here's how it'll go. The people will move if and when they choose to. And the current geopolitics will adapt to that reality.
the past 10,000 years have been an amazing anomaly, with a relatively stable climate
You mean like the previous oh, 100,000 years which had more or less stable glaciation going on? I think the last 10,000 years aren't remarkable for have a stable climate (for example, sea level rose about 60 meters during that time), but because they were an unusually warm time for Earth's climate.
Only problem with this is that the costs are already showing up in peoples insurances.
Ever hear of moral hazard? The US federal government has millions of dollars for disaster relief from floods, but can't find thousands of dollars for disaster prevention. They are effectively paying the world to build in the US's flood-prone areas. Insurance companies won't touch that.
Indeed. "Climate change" is an effective propaganda technique for enabling observation bias. Have any weird weather? It's climate change and all due to the evil humans and their fossil fuel based industrial societies.
As you might have guessed from my sarcasm, I don't buy at all that the phrase, "climate change" is somehow more accurate than anthropogenic global warming. Climate would change even if nothing particular was going on, just due to orbital dynamics of Earth around the Sun, volcanoes, and the subtle effects of continental drift.
All arguments against it seem to be centered around "Nuh UH! It's NOT warming!" but I haven't really heard much talk about how that could not be the case. Carbon absorbs more heat and we're increasing the carbon doesn't seem to be under dispute. Being skeptical is good, but you don't get to reject hypotheses if you have no other way to explain the data.
I find it a bit contradictory to pontificate about "explaining the data" when you don't actually mention any evidence other than rising carbon dioxide levels.
There's also the matter of the degree of effect. There is huge uncertainty in how global temperature changes as a result of changing concentrations of carbon dioxide. It's because there are important dynamics in Earth's climate, such as clouds and "extreme" weather, that can heat or cool in addition to the radiation blocking effects of carbon dioxide itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail at slashdot. Well, there's always /b/.
And actually offer free college education.
There's no reason to. College students are capable of paying for it themselves and as you note, there is a "severe notion" of people paying their own way, which I think is a good notion to have. College education is a privilege. Who's going to pay for "free" college education?
Instead, we've seen the forces of anti-intellectualism and greed enjoy too much success at dismantling public spending on college, out of some moral notion that people should pay their way on this matter, and for the sake of balancing budgets that are not in crisis.
Colleges are breeding grounds for a variety of anti-intellectual beliefs too (for example, multi-culturalism and anti-business types). And a lot of that particular anti-intellectualism was funded pulbicly.
We don't ask high school students to pay their way, why is college so different?
College students are adults and hence, responsible for their own actions.
I hear tuition has taken quite a jump in recent years.
Easily explained by all the public money dumped uncritically into education and student loan subsidies. It's pumped up demand and the prices that students are willing to pay for the chance to pick up a degree.
who can't be reasonably expected to have yet held a job that pays enough to afford college
That's a different problem. The minimum wage laws perversely have led to a population of young adults in their 20s who haven't held a job in their life.
For example, by the time I hit college, I had worked part time for three years and managed to save enough to cover my first two years of public college. Summer jobs got me the rest of the way. If government policy hadn't driven up the cost of college since and minimum wage driven up the cost of employing risky students, modern students would be able to do the same.
and for the sake of balancing budgets that are not in crisis
Don't be an idiot. You don't wait till your finances are in crisis before you do something. Even for a budget that is well in the black, there is plenty of work that one can do to improve it.
The US federal budget is pretty close to crisis. It's got a lot of pure shit in it, such as the educational subsidies we've been talking about, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or defense contracting. I would at least halve it first (including so-called mandatory spending), before considering any sort of tax revenue increase. Else any increase in tax revenue will just result in a corresponding increase in poor spending decisions.
"Inadvertent climate modification" was the original name and one that has some real meaning to it. It describes human activities that change climate unintentionally. It's quite straightforward and descriptive like any scientific term should be. "Climate change" OTOH has no descriptive power aside from describing changes in climate. Human sources are only one possibility. It's also worth noting that your cited article uses "global warming" in the very title. So global warming has been kicking around for a long time as well.
But most people who study so-called "climate change" actually study human-caused global warming. So why the use of an inappropriate, undescriptive term?
That's where the propaganda aspect comes in. There are some ridiculous fallacies being passed off as argument, particularly the "extreme weather" thing which blames all extreme weather on global warming even though nobody has a clue whether extreme weather gets changed at all. It's classic observer bias where you blame whatever happens on the fad environmental danger of the decade.
But by kicking around this vague label, you can incorporate any weird weather in as a "change" in climate due to human activity. Soothsayers and chicken entrails readers couldn't do any better. So how about we actually use honest language and honest debate, rather than just skipping forward to the "spend the money" stage?
That's solidly in the "big deal" territory when you multiply it by the number of storms.
There's somewhere around fifty to hundred trillion dollars in real estate assets. Tens of thousands of dollars time tens of thousands of storms is perhaps a billion dollars a year. The small storms are insignificant. It's the outlier big storms that have the huge price tag. I don't see any evidence that those become more likely because of global warming, or for that matter, that greater storm strength is more significant than US flood insurance policy (which encourages a lot of moral hazard, particularly, pricey construction in flood prone areas).
What do you think will happen once the energy supply can no longer meet the demand?
Energy is not fossil fuels. We would switch to alternatives. For example, there has been a massive shift in US power generation from coal plants to natural gas plants over a few short years. The economy is very agile and already adapts quickly to modest changes in the cost of fossil fuels.
Ethanol subsidy is not about climate change, it's about corn lobby flexing its muscles.
Sure it is. That was the primary excuse for the ethanol subsidies after all. Any other proposed fix will suffer from the same corruption. For example, there has been massive subsidies for wind and solar power throughout the world, particularly in the developed world and China. These have made a lot of money for businesses with the right connections, but it hasn't actually reduced generation of greenhouse gases.
The US's switch to natural gas has at least temporarily reduced US carbon dioxide emissions by a substantial amount which turns out more effective than burning money on renewable energy.
So, does America provide a model for how to relocate huge swathes of refugees?
Of course it does. But you have to actually understand the history to a modest degree rather than just ridiculously caricature it. Tens of millions of people came to the New World and found a home without violence.
The Immigration Act of 1924
Hence, my cutoff date of the 1920s.
Not quite as sexy: Cosmic Ray Background.
The online merriam-webster isn't exactly the "final word" on vocabulary usage. However, their "def'n 3" ("compel") fits pretty well.
No, it doesn't. Hence, my point of providing the link.
And again, what "peaceful" migrations into pre-inhabited New World areas are you talking about?
For example, immigration into the US from about 1780 through to the present day, in particular, the migration of people to New York City, Chicago, LA, and other urban areas of the US.
The historical population movement that occurred did "require" this (in the important sense that what happened, happened).
That's not a definition of "require".
Since I see little historical evidence for common "everyone's nice to one another" mass migrations into otherwise inhabited areas
The huge migrations into the New World are an excellent counterexample. The US, Brazil, Argentina, and a number of other countries had vast, peaceful migrations over a period of centuries.
given that CO2 absorbs more heat, and given that we're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, what other outcome could there be?
The atmosphere could get cooler, for example, because there's some larger effect cooling the atmosphere. It is after all a complex thing.
Here's how I'd do it. Observation: the Earth's atmosphere appears to be getting warming, CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing, and humanity is known to generate a lot of CO2. Hypothesis: human-generated CO2 and perhaps other human activities are primarily responsible for the observed increase in global mean temperature.
Even a storm that kills no one will typically do tens of thousands of dollars in property damage.
That's solidly in the "no big deal" territory.
especially since we'll have to switch soon anyway, since fossil fuels are running out.
Well then, let's switch when we have to. There's no real advantage to anticipating the end of fossil fuels.
Even if you don't hear about a storm, drought or other climate-related problem, you will still pay for it in your taxes, your utility bills, and your grocery bill.
And I bet I already pay more for alleged fixes to climate-related problems, like the US's huge ethanol subsidy than global warming would ever cost.
What part of the genocide of previous "New World" inhabitants is an "entertaining myth"?
The part where it was, as you put it, "required".
are you seriously suggesting that continental drift - which tops at about 10 cm annually - could possibly explain any kind of changes in climate in the recorded history, which, at about 6000 years long
Supposedly the closing of the Bering Strait is responsible for the current ice age state of Earth over the past few million years.
When China's grain belt moves north across the border into Siberia
That one is particularly easy since they'll grow food then in both China and Siberia. More food for everyone. The "grain belt" is not some narrow strip of territory. In North America, they grow grain from Canada all the way into northern Mexico. From this map, I see wheat grown from the equator to 60 degrees in lattitude.
China will be able to switch to different varieties, if the climate really does change. Those varieties are already growing now in warmer places, both dryer and wetter. Also the warmer it gets, the more places that will be able to grow two crops of wheat a year.
It's not going to involve nukes, but basic changing of crops to things that are better adapted to the current state of climate.
You do realize that the colonization of the New World "empty frontier" required the largest mass-genocides in history
No, I don't "realize" this. Neither do you. It's just another entertaining myth.
Sure, most land at some point was taken from someone else. But that has nothing to do with enabling mass migration. Now, in the developed world we'd rent or sell land to newcomers rather than get into a big unpleasant fight. In the undeveloped world, sure there's a good chance that they'd get into a big fight, but that sort of thing will happen anyway whether there is AGW related catastrophe or not.
There's also the facts that carbon dioxide absorbs heat, combustion engines put out carbon dioxide, and there is a lot of combustion going on. A hypothesis needs to be consistent with those facts, climate change is the only hypothesis that I've heard that can do that. What's contradictory about that?
Climate change explains why we're doing a lot of combustion or that there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The evidence you continue to leave out is that the Earth is to some degree warming (as least according to our measurements). You aren't explaining anything without that missing evidence.
Wow, thats about as much intellectual drivel as I would expect out of a political prisoner fresh out of labour-camp.
I see you fit the profile quite nicely. Let's take a look.
Climate Change is an acknowledgment that the Earth has many interconnected systems that can be aversely or even positively affected by changes to the environment.
The word I was criticizing was "accuracy". This bullshit isn't accurate. Anthropogenic global warming is accurate. It describes the key characteristics of the phenomena, namely, that it is man-caused and that it is a global warming.
Also a tacit acknowledgement that once it occurs its nearly impossible to reverse. It just so happens that it also nullifies any unfortunate and misguided pseudo-intellectualism vaulted or supported by the "Global Warming" meme of the 80s.
That's an awful lot of pointless verbiage for a supposedly "tacit" acknowledgement. No, there is no such acknowledgement. "Climate change" simply means a change in climate. All the rest of your claim is completely unfounded and not implied by the label.
the best you can do is question the motives of "scientists" to prove your point
But of course. There are trillions of dollars riding on convincing the public that AGW is dire enough that we need to spend a lot of money. That's many times what you'd need to completely buy the field of climatology.
So.... extra CO2 is OK because the Earth might have some extreme weather up its sleeve to correct for man's emissions?
Question: Isn't "extreme weather" bad/harmful?
It's not particularly harmful. You hear about the few storms that kill hundreds or thousands of people. You don't hear about the tens of thousands of storms that don't.
And it remains a key problem that we're advocating expensive mitigation efforts for carbon emissions without having a good reason for them.
How the heck are cities evidence of rapid population movement?
Look at most New World Cities. Except for a few that started prior to Columbus (like Mexico City and Quito), they're all less than five centuries old. In addition, most of the growth of these cities has happened in the last century. So we have massive movement of people recently in the sort of time frames necessary for any sort of catastrophic climate change.
Oh look, someone blowing a gasket because people disagree with him on the internets. This is so unusual.
Global warming and cooling aren't a thing, climate change, however, is. Hot places get hotter, cold places get colder, and the bits in the middle will get considerably worse than both combined with the colliding weather fronts.
And what in the world gives you the idea that this sort of "climate change" is going on? Increases in greenhouse gases lead to some degree of global warming not hot gets hotter, cold gets colder. WE have enough trouble debating this issue without imaginary theories coming in.
Oddly, this is more stable than the North-east of America, that place gets whacked silly with storms, and it will get considerably worse in the next decade, not even century.
The Gulf of Mexico provides warmth and moisture which is what you need for exciting storms such as the north east region of the US probably has seen for millions of years.
Katrina was a freak, but that last catastrophe of a storm is just progressive weather change now.
That part of the world sees dozens of such cyclones every year. There was nothing odd about Katrina other than a city happened to be in the way.
There is even a chance of another mini ice-age in the north areas again.
Apparently, glacial periods have been the norm for many millions of years. Unless we do something radical, say like dumping massive quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or greatly widening the Bering Strait, we will see another full-blown glacial advance.
Expecting the populations of entire nations and continents to just up-and-move over a few decades because habitable ranges have shifted (collapsing food and water supplies in once-fertile regions) doesn't play out so well in current geopolitics.
Come on. You have evidence of massive and rapid movement of population (the cities you refer to), and yet you still claim it can't happen. Here's how it'll go. The people will move if and when they choose to. And the current geopolitics will adapt to that reality.
the past 10,000 years have been an amazing anomaly, with a relatively stable climate
You mean like the previous oh, 100,000 years which had more or less stable glaciation going on? I think the last 10,000 years aren't remarkable for have a stable climate (for example, sea level rose about 60 meters during that time), but because they were an unusually warm time for Earth's climate.
Only problem with this is that the costs are already showing up in peoples insurances.
Ever hear of moral hazard? The US federal government has millions of dollars for disaster relief from floods, but can't find thousands of dollars for disaster prevention. They are effectively paying the world to build in the US's flood-prone areas. Insurance companies won't touch that.
Indeed. "Climate change" is an effective propaganda technique for enabling observation bias. Have any weird weather? It's climate change and all due to the evil humans and their fossil fuel based industrial societies.
As you might have guessed from my sarcasm, I don't buy at all that the phrase, "climate change" is somehow more accurate than anthropogenic global warming. Climate would change even if nothing particular was going on, just due to orbital dynamics of Earth around the Sun, volcanoes, and the subtle effects of continental drift.
All arguments against it seem to be centered around "Nuh UH! It's NOT warming!" but I haven't really heard much talk about how that could not be the case. Carbon absorbs more heat and we're increasing the carbon doesn't seem to be under dispute. Being skeptical is good, but you don't get to reject hypotheses if you have no other way to explain the data.
I find it a bit contradictory to pontificate about "explaining the data" when you don't actually mention any evidence other than rising carbon dioxide levels.
There's also the matter of the degree of effect. There is huge uncertainty in how global temperature changes as a result of changing concentrations of carbon dioxide. It's because there are important dynamics in Earth's climate, such as clouds and "extreme" weather, that can heat or cool in addition to the radiation blocking effects of carbon dioxide itself.