Hmm.... let's look just at the surface and a few feet of the atmosphere since the incredibly hot year of 1998, ignoring the trend of the past century or more and call this the great turnaround. Or, if perhaps we look even at those years and include the ocean temps, what do we see?

Combined land ocean and air temps by Ken Lassman

How would you deal with the fact that many aren't, in fact, interesting in minimizing the damage we all do?

If we all did that on our own, both individually and collectively, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in, in which there's already been significant disruption of the natural environment in a number of ways.

"How would you deal with the fact that many aren't, in fact, interesting in minimizing the damage we all do?"

That depends on what you mean by damage. If you dump oil and it seeps into my property you pay to remedy the situation or the court makes you give me your stuff. Now that cannot happen without due process, so I have to make the case that you are polluting my property.

The petroleum industry finds itself in the leftist crosshairs because their product is controlled by global corporations and their product endows the common man much of what the left is fighting, that is expansion and suburbanism, freedom to travel without a schedule and large, powerful cars. Mostly they complain about SUVs.

Global warming is a war being waged against petroleum. I refuse to join your war because I like the benefits of petroleum more than I believe your cause.

"we wouldn't be in the situation we're in"

What situation? Whatever the fudged up computer models say?

40 miles. Tell me of one place within 40 miles that proves global warming is real.

I spent half of my life 10 feet above sea level, and I go back there occasionally. I can tell you that sea levels have not risen. You have a computer model which says only what it is programmed to say and I have first-person real-world evidence that your computer models are lying.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not we're destroying the natural environment.

For me, it's obvious.

And, whenever I've followed these conversations in more depth between deniers and believers, I have always been convinced that the believers have science and facts on their side, and understand what's happening much better than the deniers.

But, I find that deniers are never convinced, and so it's not worth arguing with them.

My main point is that government action wouldn't be necessary if we were all mindful and did our best not to destroy the environment on which we rely for our existence, but that's not the reality we live with.

"My main point is that government action wouldn't be necessary"

Your main point should be wondering what the government's authority regarding the environment is based upon. Does it say somewhere in the constitution that it is the federal government's job to regulate the temperatures on earth?

Why?

If we're destroying ourselves along with the planet, that's a larger concern for me.

As far as authority, I suspect that any regulations of corporations are completely fine, given that we've created them through our legal system, and as such have the power/authority to regulate them in numerous ways.

So the government needs no constitutional authority to write law?

If they needed to abuse the interstate commerce clause to regulate drugs, don't you think they need at least some fraudulent constitution authority to be the earth's thermostat by making my electric bill higher? Do you think they can just violate our freedom without having a legal mandate to do so?

Also, I agree to disagree with you regarding global warming in a civil and friendly manner. You can be wrong and I will still like you. :-)

Corporations, as creations of our legal system, can be regulated in whatever ways we choose to do so, as part of the requirements for incorporation, and the ability to continue to operate as such.

They're not people, nor are they simply collections of people - they're separate legal fictions that we have created and continue to create.

If we want to tell Westar that they have to lower emissions as part of the ongoing ability to operate as a legal corporation, with all of the legal benefits that accrue, we can do that without any constitutional issues that I can see. Westar then has decisions to make about how to do that, and the KCC (in KS) is responsible for deciding about requested rate hikes.

Well, I'm glad about that - hope you're right and I'm wrong, in fact :-) But, I've been concerned about environmental issues for 30 years or so now, and have gotten more pessimistic about them over that time.

Really, projections of catastrophe with pictures of hurricane damage and red lines photoshopped in to tell me exactly what I'm supposed to fear?

BTW, Tarpon Bay is as beautiful today as it was 30 years ago when we fished it for redfish and snook.

Have you ever heard of the Calusa indians? Did you know that you can still see the canals they built on Pine Island 1000 years ago. Most are above the waterline now, which is odd, since you would think that with rising ocean levels the opposite would be true.

You post links to multimedia presentations. I'll post something different.. Something simple. 26°39'24.00"N 82° 9'2.48"W.

I'm amused that faced with data, you retreat to attacking form, not content. Included in the Power Point that you cast aspersions toward is the graph of sea level data from Key West which shows that it has gone up 9 inches since 1930. Since there can be local variations in the amount of sea rise, I looked up the sea level readings from Fort Myers, very close to Sanibel Island, which are located here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=19300731&edate=20130801&wl_sensor_hist=W5&relative=&datum=6&unit=1&shift=g&stn=8725520+Fort+Myers%2C+FL&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=View+Plot

As you can see, the data did not start getting collected until around 1964, so there is a mere 49 years data. A cursory glance at the data shows an approximate increase of sea level there of around 5 inches during that time. Interpolate the annual rise rate from Key West from that 75 year record and you would have gotten 5 3/4" for that time period, which is pretty close to the Fort Myers rate.

Sorry to analyze your arguments by using data, but that's what you should have expected.

Liberty quotes an "authority" who pronunces " The computer models, in short, are bunk."

Really? We should throw out the combined, evolving scientific endeavor of thousands of scientists around the world due to the evaluation and judgements of a Mr. James Delingpole, novelist, columnist and libertarian? The same person who when asked if he had read peer reviewed journal articles on climate change maintained that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but be "an interpreter of interpretations?"

To each his or her own, I guess.

Can you name that logical fallacy? LOL.

Seriously though, do you believe in science? Do you believe in peer reviewed science?

How about this science? http://www.agbioworld.org/about/index.html

What does that have to do with climate change?

I looked at it, and they're an agricultural biotechnology non profit organization, but I found nothing about climate change there.

I thought it was like $3.60/gallon. I just put in the ATM card and fill the car until the pump shuts off, so I don't really know what the price is.

I'm not laying much rubber right now because my second gear clutches are worn and I'm trying to not kill my car until I have time to fix it.