CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

This is simply false. I don't know what else to say.

 

So, your answer to being confronted with the actual evidence and date to support it, all you can say is "this is simply false" but don't have the ability to articulate why. It's telling. it begs credulity and infers that your complaint is simply faith driven. The facts don't support your faith, and likely that's why you feel so uncomfortable with this faith you still cling to....

 

You seriously doubt that? Did you even take the time to look?

 

You haven't presented any evidence, just that "you know".

 

Look at what? You haven't looked. Clearly.

Tesla does not currently need subsidies to be profitable.

 

And you know this how? Certainly not from any real world knowledge.

Tesla's only become profitable in the last 2 or 3 years. Mostly from selling their EPA credits to other manufacturers that don't exclusively sell EVs. Up until about 2020 they never turned a profit.

 

Performance data.

 

Your first citation is obsolete.
Your second citation is refuted in the linked text.

 

There is a difference between a conspiracy and a mere mob.

 

So Telsa is profitable now? Good that we agree.

 

We've discussed this before.

 

The EV is suitable only as a light duty local runabout. It lacks the capability for other roles.

 

Or if you like playing charging station roulette - hopping to find one and have an open charger when you get there.

 

We will see when the pickup truck comes out.

 

Load hauling and towing are two very weak points.

 

One of those pickup trucks has been out for a while.

 

With the massive subsidization and regulatory restrictions on competitors?

I thought you already said you didn't buy it. What changed?

 

No, it doesn't. The base argument here is "Since temperature drives CO2, CO2 can't drive tempearture."

That's a logical failure. One does not preclude the other. CO2 drives temperature, and temperature drives CO2.

Another logic failure, assuming that the initial cause has to be the same as the later cause.

Orbital factors start warming the southern ocean. That's the initial cause. That makes the oceans release CO2, the CO2 causes more warming, and the CO2 feedback loop takes over. The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback prevents a runaway feedback loop.

So ... a model. One with bad inputs and bad assumptions. GIGO.

Stratospheric cooling. Increasing backradiation. Decreasing outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands. All having no natural explanation, all smoking guns for CO2-induced global warming.

No, no, no.If someone were to say "CO2 is the only thing that has ever affected climate!", that would be an accurate statement. But since nobody has ever said that, it's an attack on a bad strawman.

Now he's switching topics, tossing everything at the wall. Standard pseudoscience tactic. If you have one good argument, you don't need to add unrelated garbage.

 

I can see you are flustered. Evidence that upsets a conventional narrative can do that. Your argument would be more persuasive had climate alarmists not worked so hard for so long to identify CO2 as the sole cause of warming, and to drive radical policy prescriptions on that basis.

 

Read the OP. Explain to us how this evidence isn't something we can know? Laughable.

 

Agreed.

 

No it isn't. It's "Since temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature, the correlation between them in the paleoclimate record is caused by the former effect, not the latter."

That's like saying, "Income drives education, and education drives income." Because the latter effect is much stronger, we don't try to improve people's education by giving them more income.

No, it is correct scientific logic. "Like causes produce like effects," is a fundamental principle of scientific reasoning.

No, the logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback means CO2 is never a significant causal factor in the first place.

Nope. All those are smoking guns for is increased CO2 at the same time as natural warming.

 

That would look less senseless if you had any evidence at all to back it up. But you don't.

Very convenient, how the "natural" warming that you have no explanation for just magically happened at the same time that the evidence for CO2-caused warming appeared.

Sadly for you, science doesn't accept magical unexplained coincidences, not when the real cause is backed up by real hard data. "Smoking doesn't cause cancer, the recent outbreak of invisible fairies that occurred at the same time does!". Good luck with that.

 

I can see you couldn't respond to my points, so you're in evasion mode. The awesome thing is everyone else can see that too.

Sole cause of the _current_ warming.

You tried to pull a sleazy switcharoo there. You tried to imply that because CO2 is identified as the cause of the _current_ warming, it was also identified as the cause of all historical warming. That's a false implication on your part, and it really hammers your credibility.

 

The data are the data.
Your claim about a "switcheroo" is a falsehood. No such implication was offered by me.
Please stop deflecting from the subject.