Climate change: Electrical industry's 'dirty secret' boosts warming

No it is not

There are a handful of scientists debating the essential elements but overall there is more consensus on this than viagra!

Trouble is that you have gotten your debate points off of right wing hacks instead of checking for yourself what the science REALLY says

Read the IPCC report on physical science of climate change you will find what you are claiming scientists are saying is very very wrong

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf

 

No. The consensus is that man caused 130 ppm of the current 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. And even at 410 ppm the concentration is no where close to the highest levels that have occurred over the entire paleoclimate record. But, 410 ppm is higher (substantially) than at any point during the holocene (last 10,000 years or so) and likely the entire epoch when glacial cycles switched from 40k intervals to 100k intervals.

Yes. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. And the climate has been changing the whole time. No one disputes this. In fact, modern climate science embraces these facts.

But, your argument is one of affirming a disjunct.Just because cause C1 (natural) led to effect E in the past does not mean that C2 (humans) can be eliminated as a cause for E as well. The analogy we often use on this forum is that just because all wildfires were natural in the past does not mean that humans cannot be the cause of some of them today.

And besides, CO2 is implicated in many dramatic climatic change events in the past (like the PETM). So why would CO2 be able to cause warming in the past, but not today?

The question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. We should investigate and develop all energy candidates. I am fully aware that energy demands are only going to increase. However, I'm also aware that food demand is going to increase and that a warming climate will suppress crop yields on a net basis and that sea levels will rise putting pressure on coastal communities requiring costly mitigation. The question is...which option optimizes socioeconomic growth...mitigating the warming or adapting to it?

I am a proponent of nuclear fusion. I'm also a proponent of wind and solar. I'm even a proponent of better nuclear fission technologies like thorium reactors. What I'm not a proponent of is extracting every last gigaton of fossil carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere.

 

No. There is no equally convincing data that says man is not the cause of the modern warming era. The evidence supporting AGW is massive while evidence supporting natural only theories is sparse and almost non-existent.

 

The issue of human caused climate change is not so controversial among climate scientists. It was more controversial a few decades ago but even then it was generally understood that rapidly rising human

human emissions of CO2 would lead to accelerated global warming. The human component of global warming since 1950 is around 100% - and that is not very controversial.

All greenhouse gases are trace gases and without them the earth would be a frozen planet, and as far as I know this is undisputed so why are you bringing it up?

No one is arguing that mankind should top using all of our current methods for creating energy. People are arguing for a transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy plus energy conservation

I have no problem with nuclear energy. You mentioned that the earth's population could be around 11 billion by 2100 so it makes sense to encourage lower birth rates. I have been in favor for that for

a long time - a voluntary approach. I am not convinced that solar energy creates as many problems as it solves.

I think that the the RCP4.5 scenario is the most realistic of the 4 IPCC scenarios and will lead to about 3.0 degrees C. of warming, relative to 1750 levels, by 2100. That is enough warming to cause

several meters of sea level rise or more and destabilize West Antarctica and Greenland. An average of 3 degrees C over the planet's surface may not sound like much but it is 60% of the difference

between the last glacial maximum (ice up to 2 miles thick in Canada) and the Holocene period.
.

 

Honestly, I think what revolts me the most is the Leftist/globalist idea that the United States should be taxed half to death to pay for experimental schemes to end 'climate change' when the biggest polluters of the atmosphere BY FAR are China and India!

Nevertheless, I would support the concept of Americans paying taxes to remove our fair share of proven, documented air pollution from the air (much of which was already done in the 1970's and 1980's). I would also support initiatives to greatly increase American participation in the removal of cubic-miles of trash and contaminants from the world's oceans, because THAT is where the greatest REAL danger to our species exists.

While we do that, we should have a no-holds-barred R&D campaign, funded by the 'rich' nations, to finally master hydrogen fusion! Hydrogen fusion reactors would provide unlimited energy and do it with no pollution! Why can't we do that?