You're paper is based on the same data. The debunking clearly shows the why what you're saying isn't accurate.

That CO2 and NO radiate heat doesn't make them 'cooling' agents in the way you're trying to imply. It means that they prevent the passage of heat energy, on the outside they radiate heat into space when they are hit by a solar flare. SOME energy does get through and the agents now keep that energy locked up longer because they restrict escaping heat.

ANYTHING hit by a solar flare is going to heat up and then start radiating heat away from itself. CO2 and NO block much of the Suns energy, we'd fry if we had all the energy coming in. That again doesn't make them 'cooling' agents. They are insulators keeping heat on whatever side of the border it currently is. If you pile more blankets on your bed, you get warmer.

That's what we're doing with CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ignoring that while temp and CO2 swings are normal, the SPEED at which they are happening right now is unprecedented.

Actually, that was debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...

Oxygen is lethal in certain concentrations, you know that right?

CO2 is a proven heat trapper, you acknowledge this yes?

By putting more of it into the atmosphere than we take out, the system is changing to have more heat trapping gases in it.

Now perhaps the system can continue to function as it has for recent history (less than 10,000 years) while having millions of years worth of CO2 added to it in just under 200 years, but that would be a pretty brazen thing to assume wouldn't it?

CO2 is not the largest driver of warming. Nobody literate in the science claims it to be. The largest driver as I'm sure you know is water vapor. CO2 is the focus of climate change because it is the single biggest change occurring. We ARE dumping millions of tons more of it in to the air than is being removed.

What drives water vapor concentrations in the air? Ambient temperature.


This is called a feedback loop. The logic is quite simple. Is logic alone enough? Of course not, but studies have shown temperatures rising pretty significantly and quickly during the last 200 years. Are there anomalies like the last 10-15 years? Sure, but after 2 centuries of rapid and increasing warming, assuming that any deviation from that upward rise means it is definitely not anything serious and is going to stop is one heck of a conclusion. One not supported by any evidence.

Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels*
* when you don't take into account 24/7 requirements.

Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels*
*When you include the pollution costs of fossil fuels.

i.e. until fossil fuels have to pay for the cleanup of the CO2 they are releasing it's simply not a fair comparison for renewable sources.

Greetings! You must be new here :)

The world is complex. All those anti-terror laws passed in the US? Mostly being used against non-terrorist criminals.

If they can use all powerful tools expressly against what the tools were approved for use against, then future wielders of said tools have carte blanche ability to decide that what you did yesterday is now a threat to the state.

The US *currently* has 30 states of emergency in effect linky. One still in effect from the 70s!

Freedom also means freedom from gov't intrusion, which is also important for that Safety/Security thing you're concerned about. In the name of Safety/Security the gov't is trying to get backdoors built into all encryption protocols. That decidedly makes you LESS safe and secure.

Funny, ice levels are at all time lows...

Having new ice form every year doesn't make a difference if it all melts every year - because when it's melted the ocean is absorbing 10x more heat contributing to the warming. Not all ice is equal. Having 2x as much ice only in the winter isn't the same as having 1x all year long.

Great way to help your kids and grandkids...

Heavy commercial trucks do damage that can't be switched to something else; i.e. the road usage is the same. Buses don't weigh anything near a loaded semi-trailer and the bus wear and tear is net positive because 20-30 cars have been taken off the road.

Oh prices might likely be lower for gasoline, but that doesn't mean they are cheaper. The pollution costs of gas aren't included in the price...

Likewise an electric car might cost more upfront, but when you're paying a quarter the cost per mile for fuel or better yet free if you put in a solar array the costs of ICE's add up quickly. Also no oil changes or other significant maintenance that ICE's have that electrics simply don't have.

While true its a terrible way to plan for something you know is coming. Do you really wait until retirement to fund your 401k?

So oil goes up as supply dwindles. Now you're stuck with having to invent, produce and deploy alternative sources very quickly. That makes it cost a lot more. Now both parts are expensive.

Instead, start putting a little money aside now and doing the R&D required to get to where we have to be. Start switching over BEFORE it becomes absolutely necessary. And no company is going to do this because it isn't profitable over short time scales. It needs the government subsidizing experiments and new technologies over the span of centuries.

Fortunately we can do this without raising costs at all. How? By using the 10 BILLION a year in subsidies we currently give to the big oil companies.

Switch to another source of electricity? When that happens in 4 BILLION years I suspect nuclear fusion using the most plentiful element in the entire UNIVERSE?

So back to you, what are you going to do when oil runs out in just a century or so?

electric cars, public transportation, buses, rail, etc. All are cheaper than individual ICE powered cars.

Noisy environments would render a clicker pretty useless.