There is a fatal flaw in the whole run away climate change argument, it's mathematical in nature and so any person who actually studies this stuff will concede it, they just then invent epicycles and "models" which constantly have to change because they always fail to predict anything and so the goal posts have to move. Most others have no idea about this mathematical fact, have never heard it, or are even incapable of understanding what it means because many people are barely numerate.
The flaw in this whole thing, the fact that makes this whole thing nonsense is that while there is a relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature rise, that relationship is not exponential, it's not even linear, it's logarithmic, i.e. sub-linear. This means that the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere the less impact each additional unit of CO2 has. The more CO2 that is emitted the more the temperature converges on a stable plateau, all other things being equal.
If you think about it, this has to be the case. Imagine a balloon which had air in it the same composition as the atmosphere, which you had laying in out in the sun, and then you slowly began adding pure CO2. If, as many believe, the relationship were not sub-linear, what would happen would be that the temperature increases would scale with the amount of CO2 you added, all you'd have to do is add a bit more CO2 and you'd have a thermal capacitor, a heat battery. If this were possible we'd be able to solve the world's energy needs by letting the sun cause balloons of CO2 to enter thermal runaway which we could then use to power turbines. This of course does not happen. Increased CO2 will trap a relatively small bit of heat, the more you added the less would be trapped, until finally you wouldn't see any more heat being trapped and the system would be stable. The same is true for the atmosphere, the effect of CO2 is diminishing on this heat trapping capacity, and we'd have to continually double the number of cars, airplanes, ships, power plants, factories, etc. simply to maintain a linear temperature increase. We have no hope of doing that, especially given our very low global GDP growth.
There is a fatal flaw in the whole run away climate change argument, it's mathematical in nature and so any person who actually studies this stuff will concede it, they just then invent epicycles and "models" which constantly have to change because they always fail to predict anything and so the goal posts have to move. Most others have no idea about this mathematical fact, have never heard it, or are even incapable of understanding what it means because many people are barely numerate.
The flaw in this whole thing, the fact that makes this whole thing nonsense is that while there is a relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature rise, that relationship is not exponential, it's not even linear, it's logarithmic, i.e. sub-linear. This means that the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere the less impact each additional unit of CO2 has. The more CO2 that is emitted the more the temperature converges on a stable plateau, all other things being equal.
If you think about it, this has to be the case. Imagine a balloon which had air in it the same composition as the atmosphere, which you had laying in out in the sun, and then you slowly began adding pure CO2. If, as many believe, the relationship were not sub-linear, what would happen would be that the temperature increases would scale with the amount of CO2 you added, all you'd have to do is add a bit more CO2 and you'd have a thermal capacitor, a heat battery. If this were possible we'd be able to solve the world's energy needs by letting the sun cause balloons of CO2 to enter thermal runaway which we could then use to power turbines. This of course does not happen. Increased CO2 will trap a relatively small bit of heat, the more you added the less would be trapped, until finally you wouldn't see any more heat being trapped and the system would be stable. The same is true for the atmosphere, the effect of CO2 is diminishing on this heat trapping capacity, and we'd have to continually double the number of cars, airplanes, ships, power plants, factories, etc. simply to maintain a linear temperature increase. We have no hope of doing that, especially given our very low global GDP growth.