CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

I believe you imagined that last bit.

 

The CO2 comes from normal life and earth processes.

 

Yep, like burning fossil fuels, burning down forests to convert them to farm land, fracking gas, and burning off methane or releasing it.

 

And things like breathing........

 

Typical climate change denial propaganda. First of all human CO2 emissions from breathing equal about 7% of what fossil fuels produce.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change

And secondly, human CO2 doesn’t add to global CO2 because it’s the result of eating foods that recently incorporated CO2 into their biology, and digestion reconverts it back to gaseous CO2 in a cycle that takes from a couple of months to a couple of years. So it’s CO2 to food to CO2. And therefore it’s completely negligible.

 

Oh, I know. CO2 production is the product of population and economic activity. Basically, how good life is.

You want to reduce CO2? Which one do you want to start with: reducing the population or killing the economy? Or maybe both at once.

And what's your plan to get there? I mean, I'd like to be ready to defend myself.

 

You need to reread my last post, and this time with comprehension.

 

You first.

 

wow. That makes no sense. I wrote it. Remember?

 

No, you need to reread my last post. With comprehension.

 

They don't drive temperature.

 

Actual science says they do. So they do.

All the studies and evidence is available. We can either accept the actual science or we can look for paid BS that soothes our biases. The majority of people accept the actual science and I see RWers continually demanding proof and that we “convince" them just to occupy us with delay and nonsense. I’m not going to waste my time with empty argument. You can believe what you choose.

 

There has never been "actual science" to establish CO2->temperature causation. There have been numerous studies showing a correlation. The paper in this OP does not dispute the correlation, but finds causation runs the other way: temperature->CO2.

 

Nazi Goebbels said repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it, and advertising capitalizes on that truth, and climate deniers are trying to do likewise.

 

What is the distribution of opinion on the cause of climate change among genuine, certified, NEUTRAL climate scientists? Is it about 95% - 5% in favor of the view that anthropogenic generation of CO2 and methane is the main cause? Or what is the breakdown?

 

Don't know and don't care.

 

That reflects a lack of objective curiosity.

BTW, did you ever answer the question of where the CO2 comes from in your “T->CO2” claim?

 

Batteries dropping in price? That’s laughable. You are aware of the supply of lithium issue right? They will never drop in price because the supply is so short.

 

There has been scientists that came out and said they have to produce studies that suggest things or journals won’t publish them. So… objective is definitely the wrong word

 

Yes, I answered your question.
Now, about curiosity:
Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "

 

There are deniers who are funded by oil companies and “advocacy groups” funded by oil companies.

 

Do you believe climate scientist Patrick Brown is paid for by big oil?

 

All I find from you on it is “that’s an interesting subject”.

 

I haven’t studied into that question so I have no opinion, nor is it significant given the broad agreement among climate scientists.

 

Please see #152.