Two things:
1. Your statement, that you weren't sure liberals agree with was: "the combustion engine has done more to improve human life than to destroy it". Al Gore doesn't even appear to disagree with you, he's talking about getting rid of combustion engines in the future and moving towards other kinds of engines! How are you so bad at this that even when you go searching on the internet (since you won't find one here) for a liberal who disagrees with your statement, you still fail???

2. If we could "end all internal combustion engines, including those in cars, because of the pollution they produce" (obviously that isn't yet feasible, but let's say we could build enough electric cars to do that) - uh, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Prop bet on you spending the night in a room filled with 5% CO2?

no

its usa against the world. you will feel the isolation soon.

Lots of things we expel that are either poisonous or harmful to us. Thats why we expel them.

Another beautiful day to watch the loony left cry like little babies. This isn't quite as good as the election but it's still fun.

Great decision by Trump.

Maybe the rest of the world will start sacrificing like the US. Then maybe we can talk. Until then your on your own. We'll see how long it takes for you to come crying back to us.

Where can I get a document that outlines the details of the Paris Agreement?

The Wiki page actually seems pretty good, AFAICT

You can read the document here

Some days crying is the appropriate response.

When you're a Leftist in Trump's America, what day isn't a good day?

Some real great scientific arguments from the conservatives among us.

Because there aren't any real conservatives who are unable to find scientific justification for their climate change denial, just a bunch of no hoper loony rightists who have no interest in or knowledge of science or the future of the planet either.

To be fair, it's a lot easier to "remain skeptical" than it is to seek out knowledge about things in which you're not well versed.

Nobody is denying the science. The question is - what are we going to do about it?

How Scientists could be more persuasive on taking action -

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1587780...limate-science

Great article and very true. I agree weare not denying the science. The problem is that the biggest polluters in the world..India and China aren't willing to do their part. Another issue is that even if every nation got together and did everything they could to slow down "global warming" there is no evidence it would have a substantial affect. Meanwhile, during this very noble pursuit, companies will struggle due to increased environmental regulations and countries will spend billions of tax payer money.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of sheep in this world. Sheep don't like the Trumps of the world. There is an estimated 63 million sheep in the US.

Scot Adams is not bright. He makes this claim:

"I give the complex climate models a 10% credibility rating."

Leaving aside the obvious fact that he doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate climate models, if he thinks they are so inaccurate then he should be MORE worried about future warming. If you accept the physics and the measurements then you accept warming is occurring and will continue. If you don't believe in climate models then you have no way to constrain that warming. To then say, "well we shouldn't do anything because the models could be wrong" assumes that the models could only be wrong in one direction.

It's a nonsense argument that pretends everything we know about climate science comes from complex models. If we had no climate models we should be MORE worried because the models eliminate extreme warming scenarios.

Hmm..seems like they are still in the Paris Accord.

Of course it would. (This is the part where you are denying science.)

India and China are in it for the money.

I guess 3 tells us Dilbert won't be persuaded without a strong blow to the head

What about 1 and 2?

Wow, you guys turn to cartoonists for your science? Even Scott Adams says himself that is ****ing stupid in his moments when he is not intoxicated by delusional grandeur.

Anyway, Rs even get destroyed in the cartoon game:

GCMs are physics models, so I don't know what he's talking about.

Why not evaluate climate models on thier own?

Hansen's 1988 model:



Projections from around 2004:

Jiggy, anything?

"Liberals might be right but they're so annoying about it"

Ah yes... So now, instead, the corporations are free to double and triple the multi-trillion dollar pollution price tag onto tax payers. Cool.

Or, no, wait. With government run by soulless Ayn Rand masturbators, surely it can write its waste and environmental destruction off as an "externality" too, to be paid by someone else. Or, more than likely, not dealt with at all. *cough*

The bar was low... And Twitler is still tripping on it.

Wait is everyone on the right shifting to "even if the science is right.....blah blah blah"? You guys really can't be that stupid can you? It's not about winning. It's about doing the right thing lol.

No real American will ever listen to those economists and climate scientists if they insist on using that liberal conspiracy "MATH" to explain their ideas. Sad!