Danderman123

Frank Luntz is the person who put the term "climate change" into wide circulation.

The point is that oil and coal power plants may not work for the poor in Africa who are currently living off-grid. Solar may be their only viable option.

Wine grapes are more tolerant of climate changes than table grapes, if only for the reason that a bad bunch gets assimilated by all the good grapes in the vat, whereas a bad bunch of table grapes can't be hidden. So, table grapes must basically be perfect to be commercially viable, and climate change can ruin an entire industry in a region. I don't have any personal experience on the impact of climate change on wine grapes.

Ummm... #believeallwomen was about rape victims, not a call to believe all women about all things.

From what I gather, she is a nut job who should be institutionalized. But she is a clever nut job, and will instead spend the rest of her life in jail.

China has pledged to stop funding oil and coal power plants abroad. The plan is to use photovoltaics instead, which are better suited for people who don't have access to power grids anyway.

My personal experience. I own a table grape vineyard in SoCal. Interestingly, during the time of Cesar Chavez (50 years ago), the harvest started in late June and ended in July. Now it ends by Memorial Day (end of May). Climate change has had a big impact on the industry.

What green taxes am I paying?

Climate change is a term coined by Republican pollster Frank Luntz while working for John McCain's presidential campaign. It has worked its way into scientific papers and common usage. I am sorry this confuses you.

Yeah, no more "scientific consensus", it's "the best explanation for the current global warming".

Global warming is devastating the southern California table grape industry, as warmer winters cause grapes to lose their sweetness. As a result, farmers are forced to either exit the business, or tear out their old grapes and replace them with different vareties of grape that don't require cold winters.

Do you have anything to comment about this topic, which is about Global Warming?

I've got it! I will take a cue from the movie Ragnarok, where the Grandmaster got bent out of shape whenever someone called his captives "slaves". So they were called "people who work for free", and he was okay with that. No more "scientific consensus" about Global Warming. Instead, we will just say "the best explanation for the current global warming". I would be thrilled if someone were to claim that the Global Warming hypothesis/theory is not the best explanation (or that there isn't any warming). Remember - no more talk of consensus, it triggers some posters here. It's "the best explanation for the current global warming". TBECGW is the acronym.

Google is your friend: "Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests."

Nope. Until and unless someone disproves the scientific consensus, a reasonable person should assume the consensus is the best explanation available. Just ranting about a consensus being bad WITH ZERO EVIDENCE is just demonstrating a psychological issue. Attacking the consensus on the basis that the data is faulty is okay - if you can prove the data is faulty. Attacking the consensus because you don't like the idea of a consensus is just a symptom of a deeper problem. You have made many posts - zero disproving the data underlying the scientific consensus. That's pathological. I don't even recall you specifically stating that the consensus about Global Warming is wrong, only that you don't believe in the idea of a scientific consensus. is there a scientific consensus in another field you abject to?

Eleftheros says "that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate". Do you disagree?

You are right. Your main challenge is the data that proves that Global Warming is real. You have nothing to disprove that, so you go on and on about random things as a distraction. It's pretty obvious to everyone that your lack of knowledge of basic science forces you to engage in diversions rather than substantial discourse on science.

Please give an example of our political overlords responding to global warming with an act that made things worse.

Trolling. I asked about what is causing the recent additional warming, but you gave an unresponsive answer. It's almost as if you know that human caused pollution is causing the planet to warm, and you can't deny it, so instead you troll. Sad. Why would anyone do that?

Since you agree "that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate", it looks like our differences are about how bad it's going to be. Like you, I don't believe the more alarmist claims. But, unlike you, I believe that there are some very real consequences from this human caused warming. Like my ruined vineyard, which is due to overly mild winters, starting about 10 years ago.

I screwed up and forgot to apply for my evisa until 3 days before my flight. The visa didn't come in time, and it's been almost a week, still no visa. What was lame is that I booked my hotel long in advance, but forgot about the visa. I would recommend applying for the visa at least a week before departure.

There is no Visa on Arrival for US citizens in Vietnam. The airline will not let you board without seeing your visa.

And you can further reduce your position to: it's impossible to know what is real. That works for inmates of lunatic asylums. Meanwhile, the available dataset supports the Global Warming hypothesis so well that you can't disagree, you can only change the subject. Which you will do in 1....2....3....

And what is producing the additional warming we have seen over the last decades, increased solar activity or human produced greenhouse gases?

Its pretty obvious that you are clueless about science. The available data supports the hypothesis that the planet is warming, due to human produced greenhouse gases. Do you disagree?