Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

My skepticism is not political at all. 

I don't believe you, even if you believe this.

Sure, why not.  Your mind is made up.  (slow clap)
Thanks for distracting from my point.

One other item in all of this, measuring "global mean temperature" is not an easy thing to achieve, accurately.  

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? - Carbon Brief

There is a good bit of interpolation and adjustment (for heat island effects for example).

This is a pretty good explanation of how such a small amount of CO2 can have an impact:

Wait, the Atmosphere Is Only 0.04% Carbon Dioxide. How Does It Affect Earth’s Climate? (scitechdaily.com)

This one has math in it, and predicts how cool our climate would be with zero CO2 in the atmosphere.

10Page63.pdf (nasa.gov)

There is quite a bit more to all of than just some correlation between warming and CO2 increases.  And it gets over my head in a hurry.  If my car breaks, I take it to a mechanic, if I get really sick, I go to an MD, in this case, I try and listen to as many "experts" in the field as possible and discern what makes sense overall knowing I personally lack the ability and time to really pore through all the literature and findings.

Only politics could inspire a childless man like Fro to care what happens to the world after he dies. 

If you have kids then that allows you to pompously bloviate about "leaving a better world" for them. 

When you don't have kids then the only thing that matters is what happens during your own lifetime, where it's pretty much guaranteed to not change by more than a tenth of a degree. 

Now I suppose it's possible that a childless person might just have a really big heart for his fellow man. But this is fro that we are talking about. He's very selfish and juvenile in all aspects of his life, unless of course when his puppet masters command him to do otherwise; as is the case here with climate change. 

I'll still need to go south in January to play golf

I just hope I'm able to play golf in 2050

upper 80s

typical strategy when losing an arguement personal attacks


https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

• It's easy, when you've already reached a conclusion, to seek out sources that agree with your conclusion and ignore everything else.
• Author is an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist.
• He pulls out the same tired "human CO2 is only 4% of CO2" BS that we debunked in this thread for you weeks ago.
• He claims that current CO2 are an effect of the medieval warm period 500-800 years ago based on some understanding (again that we talked about in this thread, involving climate feedback loops) that during the transition from ice ages to warm periods, there is a lag between temp and CO2. However, there's no precedent for 410 ppm CO2, and no way that this level today could be an effect of the medieval warm period.
• When an author starts his piece in only the second paragraph saying that this is about "tax and control" policies, you understand there might be political bias in a paper like this.

I've read yours. I'd love your thoughts on mine. 160+ year history of science and the study of CO2 and the greenhouse effect going back to 1859.

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

My skepticism is not political at all.  Im just not going to consent to having my life style changed just because folks believe that an increase in co2 of 120 ppm is the main cause of global warming

Somehow I believe this is the reverse. You're opposed to any change in lifestyle, so you deny the problem and seek out only sources which tell you it is all going to be just fine. 

In psychology, we'd call that "motivated reasoning".