" If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment." Which seems to be exactly your position."
No. You may be confusing me with someone else, which is easy to do because there are so many radicals on the Internet.

"I have attempted to provide first order math to illustrate my point, that I do understand. (not "abstracts")"
I haven't even read the abstracts. If you're a scientist with a contrarian view, I wish you luck in upending the field. That's what science is all about. If you discover that there's much less or even zero cost to releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere, that would be a wonderful discovery.

" I simply accept reality, whether I like it or not." BS. Reality is data, and there has been a boatload of data presented showing you that your claims are erroneous, incorrect, and not founded on clear scientific principles. If you believe this nonsense, you clearly are not rationally considering the data.

" If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment." Which seems to be exactly your position.

Let's just get this straight:
- You admit you don't understand this subject technically.
- I have attempted to provide first order math to illustrate my point, that I do understand. (not "abstracts")
- I have offered that you verify my assertion with experts.

However, you choose not to evaluate my argument, and rather attempt to reduce my position to that of an amateur conspiracy theorist. This is inappropriate and offensive. I am a well-established engineer, not a perpetual-motion crackpot.

There is no difference between this position you are taking and that of attributing "rightness" to religious experts/leaders. Using the word "science" in this context sounds objective, but it does not mean "knowledge" as it does in the Latin from which the word came. Rather, it is a cover for "belief".

If you don't have anything to add to the technical discussion, stop arguing what you don't understand.

"How can you be so certain that the story is right?"
I don't have a story. I just accept what the science shows so far. I won't be surprised if there's some major breakthrough in understanding in my life. I don't mean a breakthrough in that someone outside the field reading the abstracts finds a conspiracy, but real new information.

"Have you noticed that the temperature is not rising in proportion to the CO2? "
You're asking about the function relating CO2 levels to global temperatures. I do not know it. I suspect it's complicated because temperatures are a function of so many things. But it may be different at the poles vs. equator. This is way outside my area.

"Have you noticed that the only unequivocal result of extra CO2 is that the planet has significantly more plant coverage because plants need CO2."
I know the basics, about plants taking in CO2 + energy in the form of sunlight, and realasing O2 and storing the energy in chemcial bonds. The energy comes out when an animal eats it or it burns. I have a chemistry 201 level of understanding.

"why does no one talk about the benefits? "
"Research like the rest of us"?? Even my very basic reading of science articles on this topic has covered some of this. Some places are getting longer growing seasons. I am wondering if you have not even read the basics on this.

"Warmer is better than cooler."
If the temperature increases enough where it's noticeable, i.e. so much that the lakes don't freeze in WI, it would be hugely costly. This likely will not happen. In any case, it's very simplistic to say I like the climate of Tennessee better than WI's, so it's actually good if temperatures rise worse than the worst predictions. What's the worse thing that happen?

"if you are going to be the major advocate for AGW on the site"
I am not. I simply accept reality, whether I like it or not. Maybe this should become the site of denying reality in favor of conspiracy theories. It's exactly the opposite of what I took away from the three Rand books I read. In my reading, they're about what greatness humankind can achieve through work, reason, and liberty. Appeal to personal incredulity and appeal final consequences are obviously contrary to reason, but what bothers me the most is the fatalism, the idea that global warming is a disaster that will end the world or that statists are bound to exploit it. If you look at the unbelievable plenty that reason and human ingenuity have provided and the unbelievable liberty we have, all of it in ways that would be hard to explain to someone three hundred years ago, and you celebrate the achievement, the fatalistic view is that you're somehow undermining that achievement. So you must be lamenting how god-awful things are, like some bizarre parody of Ayn Rand with severe depression. I do not even understand this point of view, so count is a major advocate for reality.

So you don't know, but you are willing to castigate the rest of us for not BELIEVING.

How can you be so certain that the story is right? Have you noticed that the temperature is not rising in proportion to the CO2? Have you noticed that the only unequivocal result of extra CO2 is that the planet has significantly more plant coverage because plants need CO2.

If it's getting warmer, why does no one talk about the benefits? Warmer is better than cooler. cold kills thousands every winter, even more with higher energy costs which cause people to keep their thermometer's down. Persistent cold causes 90% of all temperature related deaths.

So, if you are going to be the major advocate for AGW on the site, perhaps you should actually do some research like the rest of us?

"Post the scientific data that supports the imminent danger created by anthropomorphic CO2"
It's like asking me to post the answer of why in a multipath environment, such as an office, you can get higher data throughput by transmitting multiple streams of slower data instead of one stream. I actually know that answer and do not know the details of why releasing carbon --> global warming --> costly impact on property.

It's like talking to someone with a medical diagnosis, grasping for some way that it's all a lie or conspiracy. IF I can't explain to them the pathophysiology of the illness, because I am not a doctor, they think maybe the truth is just what they wish it were.

"I, nor any political entity, are asking millions of others to PAY for your "spatial multiplexing"."
If they did, it would not change the way the universe works.

"You are defending the right of the state and a political party to imposes huge burdens on people and saying because the world is ending, and have no scientific proof to back it up. "
No, to all three: not defending imposition burdens, not saying the world is ending, and not accepting fringe science.

"That is all this is, and it was made popular by one of the biggest liar charlatans in the last 100 years: "Al Gore"
Neither popularizers of science nor politicizers of science have have no impact on reality. If you want to see some hardcore politicization of science, read Naomi Klein. I only got through about 15% of one of her books.

"He has NEVER changed his behavhior, he rides around in private jest, huge vehicles, and creates more carbon than 10 families."
This also has no impact on reality, beyond the bit of global warming caused by the emissions.

I understand the urge to give up energy consuming activities, but I don't think that's the solution. If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment.

"I'd have a mechanical heat valve"
My father had a similar experience. They recommended stints for his heart problem, although I think his problem wasn't inadequate profusion of blood to the heart. He had had colleagues who apparently did have coronary insufficiency who said stints were great. He was opening for a similar effect. The stint didn't help. Then he got another intervention that did treat his problem, and he amazingly bounced back to good health. I think delaying the drugs that solved the problem in favor of an expensive and invasive procedure put him at unnecessarily risk. If I ever have such a problem, I will really investigate.

"None of them require economic freedom and power to be significantly redistributed. This is the reason to be additionally skeptical of the CO2 issue."
Global warming doesn't require usurping economic freedom but I agree people definitely use it as a reason to undermine freedom and promote socialism.
The facts, of course, don't care even if the final consequences are that this changes everything and successfully sells people on socialism. That would be a horrible consequence. Consequences have no bearing on reality though.

"no additional funding has been applied to nuclear power, the only practical solution to the CO2 "issue",
It's such a shame. I don't want to apply gov't funding to nuclear power, but I think if we got rid of fear-based regulation and instead charged people the costs to others of burning stuff and the costs of maintaining nuclear reactors and managing the waste, nuclear would be a clear winner for profitable energy in the free market. Nuclear energy is scary to many people, making gov't interfere with it. At the same time, we're pulling fossil fuels out of the ground in a way that would not be profitable if people had to pay for the costs the global warming it causes.

Global warming is such a costly issue that the need to reduce gov't restrictions on nuclear power is bordering on an emergency. Energy drives human achievement, so this is huge. We should never have gotten scared of nuclear power in the 70s and 80s.

"The fundamentals of this subject are not difficult"
If that's right, they have me fooled. Like anything it seems easy if you do it all day. But I would not be able to read journal articles in that field (or any field other than electronic signal processing), and then put what they did into MATLAB, and device a way to test it. That's true for all areas of science. I find it laughable when people outside a field read some abstracts and think they've discovered something that would overturn the current paradigm. If this were true, and the supposed dilettante could actually revolutionize the field, she's in the wrong field. She should go out and do it. The answer usually is, "but there's a conspiracy". It's the same pattern for people who've discovered a perpetual motion machines and alternative medicine.

CG, you keep resorting to the irrational: " I guess I should feel glad I don't have a bunch of people outside my field saying this whole notion spatial multiplexing is just a conspiracy to sell ICs. ". I, nor any political entity, are asking millions of others to PAY for your "spatial multiplexing". You are defending the right of the state and a political party to imposes huge burdens on people and saying because the world is ending, and have no scientific proof to back it up. Have you ever heard of the term "scam"? Maybe "looters"? That is all this is, and it was made popular by one of the biggest liar charlatans in the last 100 years: "Al Gore. Think logically. He has NEVER changed his behavhior, he rides around in private jest, huge vehicles, and creates more carbon than 10 families. If it was a crisis, he would be walking and driving a battery operated car.

Post the scientific data that supports the imminent danger created by anthropomorphic CO2. Others have posted links to refute that conclusion. Repeating your opinion without scientific data to support it is not objective or convincing. "We" don't "know" what you feel to be true. In fact, your opinion is contrary to the scientific data linked here. Calling us ignorant without presenting the scientific data to support your opinion is just an insult, not a rational argument.

If I just listened to experts, I'd have a mechanical heat valve and take Coumadin every day. Instead I did my own research and picked the right surgery. Almost 20 years later no issues, no drugs and play soccer three times a week.

The examples you give each stand on their own. GMO, homeopathy, vaccines, etc. I agree with you on each of these. There is a key difference in every one of these examples and the CO2 discussion. None of them require economic freedom and power to be significantly redistributed. This is the reason to be additionally skeptical of the CO2 issue.

The simple fact that no additional funding has been applied to nuclear power, the only practical solution to the CO2 "issue", is clear evidence the people pressing the issue do not want a solution, they want power, very much like Al Sharpton. If racism couldn't be highlighted, he'd have to eat TV dinners.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but you should not disparage people who are skeptical and look deeper simply because they are not members of the closed climate science society.
I learned a long time ago that if someone can not explain something to me clearly such that I understand it, the issue is theirs (as an expert), not mine (as a learner). The fundamentals of this subject are not difficult: energy balance, radiative hear transfer, albedo, black body constants, etc. The higher-order effects are complex (and almost invariably less significant). It is quite clear from the fundamentals, as I have shown, that CO2 is not the issue as a first order greenhouse gas, very clear. All the climate scientists know this, and with pressing will admit it (sometimes it takes a lot). These last two statements should be troubling to anyone, particularly you.

Go check with one of you climate expert associates/friends. You will find out that it is true..."...but...CO2 is still the root cause...". Then you will no longer be able to follow the discussion, because it is no longer physics. It becomes various system behavioral hypotheses that are unverified.

Why would one avoid this simple question? You believe what you want, and I'll continue to study what I want and need to, and enjoy my heart, against the direct advice of the Chief of Cardiac Surgery at Yale.

"believing in the deep state mantra. "
[Sarcasm]Only the chosen few can see through the conspiracy and how they're behind all the facts and risks we don't like in the world.[/Sarcasm]

"THEY want you to "believe" in global warming, so they can use it to tell you everything you can own, eat, use, see, and design, AND also take every penny you own,"for the state". "
Setting aside all the ridiculous anti-scientific, anti-reason conspiracy theory nonsense, this one statement is true. There really is a significant population who won't let a crisis go to waste, who also thinks central planning is more efficient, and that seeking happiness for everyone but yourself is a virtue.

Reality doesn't care about these people and their activities. We have to address with the threat of socialism with reason, facing reality squarely.

You're not going to convince me to ignore science. I guess I should feel glad I don't have a bunch of people outside my field saying this whole notion spatial multiplexing is just a conspiracy to sell ICs. Now that I think about it, it would be weird at first to see them read through some transaction papers and assert they've found out the conspiracy, but it would get tiresome quickly.

Science delivers the goods. Carbon emissions are already decreasing, and if irrational restrictions on nuclear energy were lifted and some breakthroughs in energy storage happened, the problem could conceivably go away. Unscientific people will move on to something else, not fear of GMOs, homeopathy, fear of vaccines, or conspiracy theories about every human event, but rather something I can't even imagine right now.

You are helping the global march to socialism, by not paying attention to facts and adata and believing in the deep state mantra. THEY want you to "believe" in global warming, so they can use it to tell you everything you can own, eat, use, see, and design, AND also take every penny you own,"for the state". Congratulations Comrade!

Thoritsu, I must compliment you on your effort to educate the opinionated. CG is an example though, of people who have been so absorbed into the system, that rational though is foreign to them, and they will do as they are told. Sad, I didn't know the disease could progress....Great effort at trying to illuminate a dark cave....

"This is just ignorant, contrary to what we know. " CG I try, I really do, to be calm and debate, but you are definitely completely off the reservation. We have presented hard data showing that all your religious zealot, government funded climate "scientists" have lied to you, and you still fail to see it. Next thing is you will show saying Trump DID collude with Russia, and Hillary did not commit treason....Issac Newton could not sold you gravity...

Obviously not what you know, just what you assert.

Ok, so for me to convince you, I must first convince the world. Which I didn't really need to do, since the experts already know what I offered.

I suppose this invalidates your card to argue this subject here, and expect continued silence from you on this subject.

"there is no danger to climate from CO2 generated by humans. "
This is just ignorant, contrary to what we know.

"We have had this discussion before, and I have presented evidence."
You're presenting it to the wrong person. If you're a scientist, go out and revolutionize climatology by presenting research to other scientists. What a thrilling discovery it would be if human activities did not contribute significantly to global warming. It would be even better if the research might lead to ways to modulate the climate to human needs.

I think we're talking about something that's not happening because you are most likely are not an expert in this field. But unlike some other arcane area of research equally outside both our areas, this one you and most other people really wish to get one answer. Despite all the increased funding for the desired answer, we don't rely on the worlds of experts getting funding. The scientific process tries to get at reality despite human foibles.

"I'm guessing that your real answers"
All your suggested answers are incorrect, i.e. not what I am saying, except for #5. I do believe in gov't force to protect property. So you correctly characterize #5 but not the others.

"to insist the global warming gang is correct"
Out of context I would not be able to tell if you're parodying people unsophisticated about science and reason. If we're making up reality, I would make up one where global warming isn't a problem, not only to increase value in the world but also to take away one argument from the Naomi Klein's of the world who will use any problem as a way to get to socialism.

"Do "we" have a duty to "work through" this question?"
Yes. We have a responsibility not to trash other's stuff and to make them whole for accidental damages. Yes we need courts or other institutions empowered to use force to protect people's stuff. "Carte blanche" sounds like giving the power to people rather than the law, which is obviously bad.

People who say property owners are a mythical group lording socialism over victims are engaging in pure straw-man fallacy.