Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

just out of curiosity, do you think the USA should have a policy of becoming increasingly less strong... that we should treat our government as a cancer. I think that may not be the best policy if we want to remain competitive with china

 

The US data is the only reliable data set.

 

The size of government should be reduced. Ask Bill Clinton.

Governments around the world sponsor AGW research only.

 

Why is that?

 

Who said the globe is cooling ???

 

Over 90% of the measurement stations are rural and not affected by urban heat island effects.

 

Where is the proof that the current warming which is no different than the last 9 warming periods of the Holocene is the result of human CO2 emissions.

 

Exactly. But alarmists claim that the science is settled.

 

Are you just engaging in rhetorical repartee
It is almost always the case that some areas will be trimmed, while others expand

btw, Clinton was president when we could optimistically imagine a smaller pentagon based on the end of the Cold War

I do not see your point
Yes, governments around the world do sponsor AGW research.....
Which is exactly what one would expect If governments around the world thought AGW might be a problem they should address

 

The irony ^^^ is palpable.

 

Yes. You have completely missed multiple points.

 

Yes it is. It is absolutely settled. 150 years of experiments, observations, and theory development spanning nearly all disciplines of science supports that conclusion.

 

Settled is a relative term with zero scientific meaning
in this case, it means the the evidence is very strong

And, btw, there are alarmists on the other side too.... how often have I read that ANY attempt to curb greenhouse gasses will result in economic catastrophe..,. Alarmism?

 

A very vague response
Please refresh my memory

 

It has been presented to you multiple times and in abundance.

 

Ten thousand years and 9 previous warm periods without CO2 increases say it’s not.

 

Global warming is beneficial. Maximizing Economic growth maximizes the ability to adapt to any localized issues.

 

why bother.

 

There is no proof, only correlation in the current warming. There is no correlation for the previous 9 warming’s.

 

And those rural stations show more warming than the urban stations.

I understand that you didn't know that, since your masters didn't think you should be informed of such things. But you need to understand that it's true, that it makes your conspiracy theory look delusional, and that everyone who is familiar with the science knows the real state of things. You won't be able to fool people who are honest, intelligent and well-informed.

 

The US data shows half the warming of the corrupted data series. That's inconvenient.

What conspiracy theory is that ??

 

If by US data you mean USCRN then understand that it is consistent with GHCN data. If anything the USCRN data suggests the warming is even more than what the GHCN data shows.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-...e_scale=ann&begyear=1895&endyear=2018&month=1

 

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

The consensus model of climatic change is consistent with the instrumental era, holocene era, and the rest of the paleoclimate record. There is nothing about the holocene that suggests we can simply ignore the radiative forcing of CO2. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Theories that selectively ignore the CO2 influence do a poor job of matching reality. The mismatch is usually astonishingly bad.

Not only is there correlation between global mean temperatures and the net effect of all climate forcing mechanisms, but there is also a chain of cause and effect linked with fundamental physical processes.

Ignore CO2 and you can no longer explain the glacial cycles.

Ignore CO2 and you can no longer explain the PETM and othe ETMx eras.

Ignore CO2 and you can no longer explain the faint young problem.

Ignore CO2 and you can no longer explain the complete instrumental temperature record.

Various models that selectively ignore CO2 might be able to explain small segments of the paleoclimate and instrumental temperature records, but they fail, often spectacularly, when tested against the complete record. Nevermind that nearly all of these alternative models have no such fundamental physical process identified.

 

All of those occurred without CO2 increasing.

The instrumental temperature record is nothing more than an artifact of urban heat island and land usage effects acting to "show" more warming than is actually taking place.