Robertson_Davies :- “Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.”
There is only one question. In having no answer to it and taking up the entirety of the debate on alternative technologies it is obvious that CO2 was chosen precisely because of its ability to compound the weather/climate forecasting problem to the point where real industrial pollution, over fishing, de-forestation and the other disgusting shit that should be on the agenda, not to mention the third world living in their own sewage and unable to find clean drinking water are points that are now, mostly because of supposed environmentalists, completely off the table because politicians can see much cash and power in their future by making out that CO2 is a pollutant.
That question that no-one answers?
Is there, or has there ever been, empirical, repeatable evidence that past, current or future levels of CO2 in atmosphere have, can or will lead to an increase in global temperature?
Computer models are not proof. (The IPCC state that the climate cannot be modelled because it is a chaotic, non-linear system) Proof of warming is not proof that CO2 did it. (Proof of warming is where all the academies, scientists and media are concentrating their efforts – why is that?)
CO2, apart from lagging, rather then leading, global temperatures by up to 800 years, is vital for every living thing, at historically low levels, slowly rising out of dangerously low levels for plant life (which is why the 0.28% extra, the portion we humans “create”, of total CO2 is gulped down by plants and plankton to the point where the Earth has greened 15% extra since NASA have been studying it) and, at 0.038% of atmosphere currently, even if it tripled it would be nowhere near a problem (in the greenhouse sense) and would need to be x10 before it reached the level in your front room when occupied for more than an hour by 4 adults in deep conversation. Imagine a world where all that went into reverse.
Even if we burn everything there is to burn, including all fossil fuels, plants and animals above ground as well the 19x(estimated) as much biomass underground, we will only be able to get the level to about 0.1% of atmosphere which would be up to 11x less than the permitted amounts on nuclear attack submarines, where you would guess that alertness and health are of prime interest. The oxygen level in atmosphere would, maybe, drop from 20.9% to 20.8% by so doing. This would take us into the year 2200(approximately) when coal, at current estimates of the easily extracted stuff, runs out. If we haven’t risen above burning stuff to get around by then we deserve everything we get.
The majority of those arguing for the bad science rely on attacking the man because no-one, on either side, can show definitively, as yet, CO2s role in climate/weather, benign or not. The “deniers” (such a nice word, foisted on sceptics by the religious fundamentalists who “believe” humans are all bad and whose guilt we must all pay for by the way) mostly, just want the subject cleared up so that the vast, ongoing funding (seems strange when the “science” is soooo “settled”) can be diverted into real, and really fixable, problems such as clean water provision for everyone of our brothers.
Cap and trade/ carbon trading will turn over more dollars in a decade than ALL the oil companies have turned over in the entire history of oil companies. At least the oil companies have to give you some tangible product for your hard earned, not just feed more paper into a printer.
CO2 looks more like the perfect target as time goes by. Shame the global temperature has plateaued over the last decade while CO2 continues a steady one millionth, or so, part per year increase.