Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

…invidious. You obviously have not looked at the evidence and quality of the work on climate prediction involved in the GW and Cap-And-Trade work. …
This has nothing like the science or accuracy associated with any of the science and math examples you gave. …
This is not science. I don’t know what to call it. But it wouldn’t be polite.
And CONSENSUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! The data is not there. The Emperors have no clothes.
About your graph, the less said the better. Not one of the assumptions underlying it can be justified.

…
Co2 is one factor. We are able to measure it. We can predict it. Its importance is not measured yet, but we know it will go crazy in the future if something is not done. So the question is it wise to ignore this factor? If “97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming” I don’t think I can safely ignore them. Do you?…

That “97%” is false. Climatologists and physicists and hydrologists all have different knowledge sets that need to be plugged in here, and climatology knows nothing other than what the very limited modeling is saying about CO2’s effects.

So we know no such thing as “it will go crazy in the future if something is not done.” CO2 absorption is now and has long been near its maximum. It’s an asymptotic function. Even multiplying concentrations by several orders of magnitude would only add fractions of 1% to its effects. It is irrelevant.

Consider that CO2 has been climbing for a couple of hundred years, and human contributions have only been measurable for about 60 years, and during that time temperature has trended down, and up, and down, and up, and down again. That is impossible under the “CO2” driver hypothesis. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE TEMPERATURE GO DOWN IF CO2 IS CONSTANTLY RISING? CO2 is NOT the driver.

The temperature patterns DO, however, match solar sunspot activity almost precisely. A much more plausible hypothesis, which is ARTIFICIALLY EXCLUDED from the IPCC models. Because the modelers were told by the IPCC managers to exclude it.

These are video games, not actual emulations of the climate system. Worthless.