Which scenario is more plausible, thousands of scientists pretending to believe in global warming to get government grants or Cruz denying it to get campaign donations?That quote comes from an editorial I found at "RealClearPolitics.com" Here's another gem:
You have to feel sorry for Ted Cruz. Donald Trump has hogged so much airtime with his cynical demagoguery that the senator from Texas has had a hard time capturing the attention of Republican voters. That is surprising, because when it comes to cynical demagoguery, this is the first time Cruz has ever lost out to anyone.I'm going to go out on a really thick limb six inches from the ground and take a wild guess that "Steve Chapman"—the author of the above mentioned psychotic rant—doesn't like Ted Cruz very much.
His patented formula is a mix of repellent ingredients: misrepresentation of facts, baseless smears, exaggerated sincerity and pretended solidarity with the average person. If Cruz tells you it's raining, you can leave your umbrella at home.
We won't go into why. We know why ... Okay I bet some of you are demanding to know why "Steve Chapman" Hates Ted Cruz with the kind of Hatred that demands capitalization. Well, since I am a psychic and because I can actually see into "Steve Chapman's" puny little mind I'll just go ahead and divulge the plain truth. You see, Steve is a small "man" and he was abused by his mother ... sexually! ... I'm kidding. I'm just kidding relax ... I'm not really psychic.
But that's not why he hates Ted Cruz. He hates Ted Cruz because "Steve Chapman" desires another ice age, a really long one. That's right, ten thousand years of ice and snow that will eradicate evil mankind from the planet. He probably thinks rats or cockroaches will do a better job as future caretakers of Gaia, in, oh, about an epoch or two.
Let's talk about CO2. Did you know that the Earth is self-regulating? Did you know that plants use CO2 in photosynthesis? Did you know that in response to a greater level of CO2, plants grow bigger, taller, and faster? More plants, bigger plants, and taller plants mean a much greater amount of photosynthesis is occurring than before the increased CO2, meaning that all that extra CO2 is in the process of being converted to oxygen and food. But forget all of that "self-regulation" for now. How significant is CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and what can humans actually do about the temperature, even if they wanted to?
So let's ask Steve's question again, shall we? "Which scenario is more plausible, thousands of scientists pretending to believe in global warming to get government grants..." Hmmm ... "thousands of climate scientists" (with their thousands of families?) who depend on government grants not only to fund their science, but also to feed clothe and house all those families ... or Cruz denying it to get campaign donations? Are we asked by Steve Chapman to actually believe that Ted Cruz gets so much more money from these insane lunatic climate deniers than he does from say the KKK, or the Koch brothers, or why not Lex Luthor too, that just denying AGW is his Golden Ticket to the Oval Office?
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Here's another question. How many climate scientists are completely unaware that it is in fact the water vapor in the atmosphere that causes 95% of the greenhouse effect? Do I hear silence? Helllloooo echo echo echo!!!! The answer is none. Not one. Well maybe Al Gore but he's not a climate scientist, he only pretends to play one on TV.
So why not a water tax? Or how about a stove tax. You there eating those boiled eggs! You there! Did you pay your steam tax?