America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Oh, you said "bonus".
Nevermind.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned of heavy costs to the EPA’s carbon rules, saying they would cost the economy an average of $51 billion and 224,000 jobs a year through 2030. The group also sees up to $28.1 billion a year in costs for utilities and customers.

Film at 11..

Water vapor is actually the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, not CO2 yet we give water vapor a pass on it.

What about bovine flatulence?
And hair spray propellant.
And why would a greenhouse even need gas?
The only stupid question is the one left un-asked.
Or the ones posed here.

HD, your right, but from what I have read increased water vapor is caused by increased CO2 levels. So to decrease the water vapor levels you need to decrease the CO2 levels.

prolly the internets....

nope... not saying that..

prolly from all the new vapor cigarette things...

Yahoo effects of water vapor on global warming. It was on the first or second page.

LOL, TG is right the link does not work. Actually I found it by googling the following, effects of water vapor on global warming. The report was from NASA and was on the first page of results.

Not as long as I'm making money off it.

Direct quote from the article" Increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere."

TG, the water vapor is relavent, my point is that article states carbon dioxide increases water vapor.

smoke on the water
fire in the sky

speak merican essay

I hope that didn't have anythng to do with the fireman spittin or you are in for an audit (as soon as cros finds bloody)

Is this the new 500?

Darn, it's no longer the hidden 500.

Acording to the NPRs that's why everybody has weeds in their lawns this year.... I remember battling weeds the first couple months of spring for years but now apparently it's an epidemic...

Read it again.
The water vapor is the primary culprit, even though the two have a mutual impact.
Your facts are correct, but your conclusion is backwards.

The closing quote from that article:
"Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

TG, now I think I understand your point so I will try to better state my point.

After reading HD's point about water vapor I read an article from NASA that explained that atmospheric water vapor is a cause of global warming. It also stated that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide increases atmospheric water vapor. Global warming is far to complex of an issue to state that it is man made. But I find it reasonable to say part of global warming could be man made. Also due to the complexity of global warming it is unrealistic to state that it is harmful. But I find it reasonable to say that global warming could be harmful.

I would like to the atmospheric water vapor trend reversed, stopped, or slowed. I do not know which of these is realistically possible. My reasoning for this is that due to the possibility of global warming being harmful I think it is worthwhile to reverse, stop, or slow global warming. Again I do not know what is realisticly possible.

I think an obvious way to do this is to reverse, stop, or slow atmospheric carbon dioxide. Again, I do not know what is realisticly possible.

Man isn't going to change the Suns radiation dude.

Excellent post.
I highlighted the problem. although you admit it may not be "possible", that's not the issue. The issue is whether it would have any measurable effect.

Obama, algore, and the legion of minions have decided that it DOES have an impact. They formulate taxes and fees and laws and mandates penalties based on their assumptions. Assumptions that even NASA has determined are inaccurate at best.

If the only thing you ever knew about climate change came from that NASA article, you would dismiss CO2 as negligible. Now, ask yourself why you are giving it so much weight.

why would you even think that..???

What sort of ban length would I get if I created a "victor808@cigarbid" username?