Stu is an example of a leftist/ troll / person who refuses to to think in systems.
generally it requires a higher IQ to think in systems. Many estimate it to be about 120.
Leftists make the same mistakes over and over.
They think that by raising taxes... govt revenues will go up.
They do not understand that if they are already taxing too much or you raise taxes too too high revenues can go down and vice versa.
Real scientists will tell you the same thing about greenhouse gases.
Planets without them are hotter and cooler.
Greenhouse gases act as a thermostat... see my quote from NASA.
They regulate temperature... and their effect or response most definitely does not result in a linear change with temps.
Adding co2 to the a lower atmosphere that already has plenty of co2 may not cause much if any heating... because
a. the added co2 may conduct temps upward, and / or
b. the added CO2 may wind up shielding more warming energy from coming in the earth.
CO2 is a tiny part of the greenhouse... some agw nutter scientists speculate co2 could cause significant warming by speculating that when you add CO2, CO2 causes more clouds to form. (many of the recently failed model used that assumption.)
The problem with that theory is that adding more cloud cover may have a cooling effect not a warming effect. NASA does not know if more clouds are net warming or cooling.
Stu... you have to realize you are dealing with a complex system.
You don't just add co2 and say more warmth.
the last 16 years should prove that to you.
we doubled co2 and temps did not rise.
You have to look longer term... because it system with many inputs.
Quote from stu:
Bullshit.
The fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect has been part of classical thermodynamics for 150 years and global warming / anthropic global warming is firmly established in the science of molecular physics.
Surely you're aware Classical Newtonian physics allows great precision but not 100% certainty to outcomes when applying basic mathematical laws of motion and gravitation. It is nonsensical to suggest Newtonian physics are wrong because there is uncertainty and an element of error .
It is just as nonsensical to deny the established physics behind greenhouse warming of planetary atmospheres on the back of the same uncertainty.
The arguments against anthropic global warming first need to overcome no less than fundamental basic classical science behind greenhouse global warming.
It would require overthrowing known fact and basic laws of physics which show how and why increasing co2 confines more heat in the atmosphere causing a warming of the planet, and after taking into account associated circumstances .
To insist the science is all wrong only because it is 'only 98% certain', is to join the league of deniers who advise playing russian roulette with a gun whose chamber is only 98% full of bullets.
They beggar belief.