Sugar is also human food (and plant food) - but eat too much of it and you get fat and die. No one is saying you have to eliminate CO2 from the planet lol. But you do have to reduce it's concentration in the oceans and atmosphere if you don't want to face a debilitating and catastrophic economic cost. The left doesn't oppose nuclear because of the amount of energy it produces (in fact some support it) but rather because of radioactive waste and thinks like chernobyl. Maybe you've heard of that? If not I suggest you google it. Clean energy is the pathway to allow us to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which are not as cheap as you think when you consider the economic cost they are inflicting on the entire planet. Fusion power is 15 years away. We need to accelerate that and buy us time.
You obviously don't work in business. Plus - when Biden did this before you guys mocked him as hiding in his basement. No matter what someone does, you'll criticize it.
You've missed the point. If you think more CO2 is a good thing, then I can't help you. You have every right to believe in whatever you want, whether it's God or that continually adding more of something to a system will just make it better. Reality is that too much of nearly anything will disrupt a system, and that's what is happening to the climate.
All this discussing and debating but I am just sitting here thinking we are decades too late. We have poisoned the water and land with plastics from our economic productivity. The world is getting hotter and climate is becoming more chaotic. Whether this is 1:1 to industrial emissions and economic activity (strong evidence supporting this) or not is kind of moot because the ice caps are melting, and there is no going back. Humans had a good 12000 year run, but if society collapses due to inability to get electricity or worse grow crops, there won’t be another Industrial Revolution on this planet. All the readily accessible resources were tapped and we will lack the technology to retrieve what we are currently using. Depressing but me using a paper straw or riding a bike won’t fix that.
Because their arguments have already been dissected and shown to be highly flawed. Also they tend to be funded by interests aligned with oil/gas. Plus a lot of people know/suspect you play devil's advocate with some of the stuff you post to provoke reactions.
Sometimes I feel like you are being glib. But I have looked at many of your climate articles and people you have promoted on here (such as Judith Curry) and dug through their evolution and change and their positions, and read through the points and counter points of that position, and ultimately find why they are lacking. I put the time in.
so by "Because their arguments have already been dissected and shown to be highly flawed" (passive voice) you mean you have dissected their arguments and you have shown those arguments to be highly flawed (active voice). got it.
Others (scientist) have dissected their arguments, which we have done ad nauseum over the years. For example in the case of Judith, she pushes that there is this uncertainty in the models which she claims the models don't take into account, yet she can't say where the unaccounty uncertainty comes from - it's unsubstantiated. Yeah so, I don't put much stock in what she says when she can't back it up.
We are not too late. Emissions dropped this year for first time in decades. Not everything is gloom and doom. We're finally seeing progress
What is research funding? Scientists who do the research are salaried employees. The salaried employees who are doing the models are doing thermodynamic models of systems of differential equations. That's a skillsets that can get you a high salaried position in many sectors of industry like modeling thermals for all sorts of industrial uses like microprocessor design, design of electronic hardware chassis (modeling and designing the the thermal dissipation of these hardware components for example). They are high skilled individuals with high level technical math skills who can easily find jobs in so many sectors of private industry. They chose research on climate science because there is sincere intellectual curiosity. These people could easily jump into private sector design engineering/modeling opportunities but they don't because again they have a sincere intellectual curiosity as academics. Apply Occam's razor. Who is more likely to be chasing maximization of profits. Research scientists with high level technical math skills or oil and gas execs who are tasked to sustain a certain amount of growth every quarter to keep their positions? Your conspiracies and accusations have no sense when you apply basic analysis of intent and motivations of these people compared to other l and gas executives.
I believe this is a false assertion. She has on countless occasions mentioned that virtually NONE of the models accounts for cloud cover (among other things). this is a few years old but is representative: The cloud-climate conundrum https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/02/the-cloud-climate-conundrum/
What I know is that it was previously thought that clouds impacts self cancels - the reflective benefit you get during the day is canceled by the heat trapping effect at night, and that currently they are seeing cloud cover change in a way that increases warming, not cooling. My mane issue with Judith Curry is she's made numerous claims that are spurious at best, and look to be downright false and disingenuous. So no, I don't see her as a credible source at all.
more CO2 is definitely a good thing for plant life humans can adapt to any warming changes, as long as we are allowed to produce the energy needed to do so
