75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[Sunsettommy]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.
View attachment 477289

Another link free chart, how come you rarely post the links Crick?

Brain-free posters?

You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.

This is how feeble you really are.

 

[Crick]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.
View attachment 477289

Another link free chart, how come you rarely post the links Crick?

Brain-free posters?

You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.

This is how feeble you really are.

I'm not the one rejecting widely-accepted mainstream science.

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

He smokes a ton of weed. Just ignore him.

; - )

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick in the belly writes another debate avoiding statement,. The jerk avoids answering questions, fails to provide links when asked and then says this shit:

I'm not the one rejecting mainstream, widely-accepted science.

The problem YOU have is you have no valid arguments to offer, that is why you are behaving like a jack ass!

The same jack ass who completely ignored a number of published science papers I posted today that shows that CO2 is a FOLLOWER of long term temperature changes, which obviously means it isn't a driver of climate.

You have NOTHING to show to support your CO2 delusion, that is why so many here disputes you so much.

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.
View attachment 477289

Another link free chart, how come you rarely post the links Crick?

Brain-free posters?

You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.

This is how feeble you really are.

Tell you what Tommy, why don't you do a search for the data you're interested in and post it here with any links you think it needs. Show us how it ought to be done.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is what jerk Crick is doing, is play the deflection game by trolling with evasive statements.

Tell you what Tommy, why don't you do a search for the data you're interested in and post it here with any links you think it needs. Show us how it ought to be done.

Here is that post he IGNORED that contained a link to a bunch of science papers that doesn't agree with him, even posted an ABSTRACT to one of the papers, he ignored it. Now the Crick in the belly has the GALL to request the data when I posted actual science papers that disputes him:

From post 257 he ignored:

"Ha ha ha, you didn't address the science papers in the link that doesn't agree with you. You didn't address the chart that are based on Vostock data, you refuse to acknowledge that well supported evidence that CO2 does lag temperature changes, which indicate that it isn't a driver of climate change.

Here are the published papers you ignored:


Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.

Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years

Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years

Here is one you never read:

Science

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

1. Hubertus Fischer,
2. Martin Wahlen,
3. Jesse Smith,
4. Derek Mastroianni,
5. Bruce Deck

Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

LINK

===========

He has completely ignored this post of 65 minutes ago while he has posted about 10 times since then.

Give it up Crick in the belly you are not fooling anyone here.

 

[Crick]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

 

[Crick]

This is what jerk Crick is doing, is play the deflection game by trolling with evasive statements.

Tell you what Tommy, why don't you do a search for the data you're interested in and post it here with any links you think it needs. Show us how it ought to be done.

Here is that post he IGNORED that contained a link to a bunch of science papers that doesn't agree with him, even posted an ABSTRACT to one of the papers, he ignored it. Now the Crick in the belly has the GALL to request the data when I posted actual science papers that disputes him:

From post 257 he ignored:

"Ha ha ha, you didn't address the science papers in the link that doesn't agree with you. You didn't address the chart that are based on Vostock data, you refuse to acknowledge that well supported evidence that CO2 does lag temperature changes, which indicate that it isn't a driver of climate change.

Here are the published papers you ignored:


Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.

Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years

Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years

Here is one you never read:

Science

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

1. Hubertus Fischer,
2. Martin Wahlen,
3. Jesse Smith,
4. Derek Mastroianni,
5. Bruce Deck

Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

LINK

===========

He has completely ignored this post of 65 minutes ago while he has posted about 10 times since then.

Give it up Crick in the belly you are not fooling anyone here.

Too much coffee this morning Tommy? I didn't ignore the CO2 lag data. I agreed with it. Were you hoping I wouldn't?

 

[Crick]

This is what jerk Crick is doing, is play the deflection game by trolling with evasive statements.

Tell you what Tommy, why don't you do a search for the data you're interested in and post it here with any links you think it needs. Show us how it ought to be done.

Here is that post he IGNORED that contained a link to a bunch of science papers that doesn't agree with him, even posted an ABSTRACT to one of the papers, he ignored it. Now the Crick in the belly has the GALL to request the data when I posted actual science papers that disputes him:

From post 257 he ignored:

"Ha ha ha, you didn't address the science papers in the link that doesn't agree with you. You didn't address the chart that are based on Vostock data, you refuse to acknowledge that well supported evidence that CO2 does lag temperature changes, which indicate that it isn't a driver of climate change.

Here are the published papers you ignored:


Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.

Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years

Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years

Here is one you never read:

Science

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

1. Hubertus Fischer,
2. Martin Wahlen,
3. Jesse Smith,
4. Derek Mastroianni,
5. Bruce Deck

Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

LINK

===========

He has completely ignored this post of 65 minutes ago while he has posted about 10 times since then.

Give it up Crick in the belly you are not fooling anyone here.

Too much coffee this morning Tommy? I didn't ignore the CO2 lag data. I agreed with it. Were you hoping I wouldn't?

Of course that's not to say that I think it has the bearing on the current situation YOU seem to believe it does.

 

[jc456]

I'm not the one rejecting widely-accepted mainstream science

That’s never been proven correct

 

[Crick]

Crick in the belly writes another debate avoiding statement,. The jerk avoids answering questions, fails to provide links when asked and then says this shit:

I'm not the one rejecting mainstream, widely-accepted science.

The problem YOU have is you have no valid arguments to offer, that is why you are behaving like a jack ass!

The same jack ass who completely ignored a number of published science papers I posted today that shows that CO2 is a FOLLOWER of long term temperature changes, which obviously means it isn't a driver of climate.

You have NOTHING to show to support your CO2 delusion, that is why so many here disputes you so much.

You would seem to be arguing against the validity of the greenhouse effect. Is that correct? If so, there is a special sub-thread in this forum for just that topic.

 

[jc456]

Crick in the belly writes another debate avoiding statement,. The jerk avoids answering questions, fails to provide links when asked and then says this shit:

I'm not the one rejecting mainstream, widely-accepted science.

The problem YOU have is you have no valid arguments to offer, that is why you are behaving like a jack ass!

The same jack ass who completely ignored a number of published science papers I posted today that shows that CO2 is a FOLLOWER of long term temperature changes, which obviously means it isn't a driver of climate.

You have NOTHING to show to support your CO2 delusion, that is why so many here disputes you so much.

You would seem to be arguing against the validity of the greenhouse effect. Is that correct? If so, there is a special sub-thread in this forum for just that topic.

Why’d you bring it up here?

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick in the belly writes another debate avoiding statement,. The jerk avoids answering questions, fails to provide links when asked and then says this shit:

I'm not the one rejecting mainstream, widely-accepted science.

The problem YOU have is you have no valid arguments to offer, that is why you are behaving like a jack ass!

The same jack ass who completely ignored a number of published science papers I posted today that shows that CO2 is a FOLLOWER of long term temperature changes, which obviously means it isn't a driver of climate.

You have NOTHING to show to support your CO2 delusion, that is why so many here disputes you so much.

You would seem to be arguing against the validity of the greenhouse effect. Is that correct? If so, there is a special sub-thread in this forum for just that topic.

Your dishonesty follows your every post, you have the well honed talent to misrepresent what I post.

No. I am saying that long term CO2 changes FOLLOWS long term temperature changes, which YOU never dispute, that is why you can't say that CO2 is a main factor in changing climate into a different direction, the postulated increase in CO2 warm forcing effects are too small for that.

That is entirely different from saying it has no part in the heat budget, it does but it is so small and the 100 ppm increase adds so little more warm forcing to the total, THAT is where warmist/alarmists blows it so badly, since the increase in warm forcing of CO2 of the last 150 years is very small.

 

[Crick]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why they aren't the same number?

You are talking to a wall, the man doesn't understand what you are talking about, this despite the explainable charts you posted.

 

[Crick]

Your dishonesty follows your every post, you have the well honed talent to misrepresent what I post.

No. I am saying that long term CO2 changes FOLLOWS long term temperature changes, which YOU never dispute, that is why you can't say that CO2 is a main factor in changing climate into a different direction, the postulated increase in CO2 warm forcing effects are too small for that.

That is entirely different from saying it has no part in the heat budget, it does but it is so small and the 100 ppm increase adds so little more warm forcing to the total, THAT is where warmist/alarmists blows it so badly, since the increase in warm forcing of CO2 of the last 150 years is very small.

You have yet to give the slightest hint as to why CO2 can be dissolved in the world's oceans, and therefore released by rising temperatures, AND possess an absorption spectra that includes a large chunk of infrared. WHY would those two things be mutually exclusive? [Corrected at 1502, changed "can't" to "can" in the first sentence.}