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

You said that scientists actually constructed a replica of earths atmosphere and tested it by varying the co2 mixture

if so do you have the published report on this

Literally, high school students do this experiment: https://digitalcommons.imsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1007&context=eco_disrupt

It's absolutely a replica of earth's atmosphere with varying the CO2, because it's literally earth's atmosphere with CO2 injection (in this case by dropping alka seltzer in water). 

This is not new. This is basic stuff. 

This is not new. This is basic stuff.

Ohhhh what a relative phrase, lol.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is about as solidly KNOWN as anything in science.  Now, one can question climate models, I do myself, as climate is extremelly complex.

The more I read about all this the more I get confused, really, the topic is basically beyond my efforts.  So, what politicians have done is get a group of folks together to prepare a broad summary, we call this the IPCC Report, which anyone can read, the summary thereof is not very complex nor long.  Whether they are right or not is a valid question, but certainly is beyond my pay grade.  All models are wrong, some models are useful.

The problem isn't at what % a consensus is formed, it's that one side learns what the evidence suggests and if it goes against their ideology, they pretend to suddenly be skeptical.
But instead of being skeptical due to practical reasons, it's simply to cast doubt, just because.  It's mostly a delay ploy in order to get some of their own research - just enough to launch a "what about-ism" campaign.  
.
I'm not sure when or even why conservatives decided "fuck the environment" was the party line, but that was a choice.  
Obviously, not all conservatives feel that way, but it's definitely the unofficial policy of the party.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-the-climate-heal-itself-cumulus-cirrus-clouds-negative-feedback-un-30bbbef0?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR0tctfEV7YdWhi7NiL_cf6RbJmIcOFuFmi7vP0lTumAKKOInTEAPtw-l3s
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-the-climate-heal-itself-cumulus-cirrus-clouds-negative-feedback-un-30bbbef0?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR0tctfEV7YdWhi7NiL_cf6RbJmIcOFuFmi7vP0lTumAKKOInTEAPtw-l3s

I think many conservatives would like to do better with the environment

if the effort was cost effective and would actually help

but, it seems party lines rule every argument

Few folks are "anti-environment", as that position is nonsensical.  As noted, there can be a discussion about urgency, cost, benefit, etc. that is legitimate in my view.  I've pointed out on numerous occasions with hard data how the "steps" being taken now at considerable expense cannot have any measurable impact on climate using the IPCC's own models.  The MIT Climate Group has said the same thing.  I've heard we'd need $50 TRILLION to get to net zero just in the US by 2050.  That isn't practable, it's not going to happen, "we" are going to throw a few billions at it and wonder why it makes no difference.

That's why a serious plan is needed showing costs, benefits (using the accepted models), and why we need to start now.  Such a plan would be looked at askance even by liberals.  And that is why no such plan exists.

I'm actually just kidding around.  I was in NOLA two weeks ago, high temps were around 95, and humidity was high, as it typically is there.

But it felt deliciously balmy compared to the 105 I'd left in Austin.

And then there were those 84-88 degree days on the Florida coast in Pensacola.  Pure bliss.  I wanted to stay forever.  I think I might just move there.

Welcome!