Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are
I'm glad you agree, though I'm not certain what you're implying when you say "a trace gas thats needed for photosynthesis".
I think there are destructive attitudes at both ends of the spectrum. I like to think of myself as a person who believes that the science gives evidence that the globe is warming and much of that warming can be attributed to increases in C02 and the majority of C02 comes from burning fossil fuels. Having said that I think under and over reaction can have serious consequences. I am much more moderate in my approach to solutions.
I suspect that we are close to technologies that will, on their own will reduce our use of fossil fuels over the next 25-50 years. I don't think armageddon will occur before then. Mostly though increases in efficiency, electric cars being an example. They still require fossil fuels as about 67% of electricity in the US comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It is much easier to create technologies to reduce carbon emissions at the source, than at the end user.
Now the debate should be, rightfully so, about how much technology we should pay for to reduce carbon emissions? Should we retrofit Coal, oil and gas plants with costly technologies? Or should we spend money on longer term goals of finding viable replacements like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and even increase insulation and efficient technologies?
IMO there is no silver bullet when you consider the costs of making changes. I realize that overly restrictive rules will only lead to people looking for inexpensive ways to subvert the rules. Case in point a friend of the family has a large business in salvaged cars. He can heat his warehouse with reasonably clean natural gas, or when the prices skyrocket he turns it off and kicks on the waste oil heater that burns used motor oil (he obviously gets for free). Costly taxes and restrictions will have a rate of diminishing return as they become more expensive on the general public and I for one realize that.
Honestly, I think inexpensive common sense ideas are best for existing fossil fuel plants, and R&D for all the other "green technologies" based on real world viability.
It's a conversation worth having if we could just get the moderates on both sides to ignore the zealots.
Let the principles of the Free market make the determination of what's viable as far as technological innovation goes and what's snake oil sold under false pretenses.
Germany is a excellent example of what happens when ideology is allowed to run amok.
Without intelligent analysis, without open debate they committed to becoming the Worlds first Nation powered exclusively by " renewable energy sources.".
They shut down their Nuke plants and spent hundreds of Billions of dollars building Solar power plants and building Wind turbines to power their grid.
Renewable energy sources of-course have to be heavily subsidized and its the consumers who've had to bear those massive cost increases as they currently pay over 300 percent more than the average American for their electricity.
Their own Finance minister came out last year and publicly declared their " Energy revolution " as a total failure.
Since Solar and Wind are susceptible to inherent lags the German Government has had to build new Coal fired ( lignite ) power plants and now they rely more on Coal than their " clean energy " solutions for their electricity.
What that means is the German citizens pay 300 percent more for their electricity and their air is dirtier than it was prior to Merkel shutting down their nuke plants.
Global warming is proven with Computer models built with fudged data and processes that have nothing to do with " Science ".
"Homogenizing " ( manipulating ) temperature data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is not Science, its fraud.
Science involves the objective and honest analysis of EMPERICAL data. What Federal agencies like the NOAA have done is to ignore those basic standards. They've replaced them with arbitrary standards and processes that always back their predetermined conclusions
" Homogenized " temperature data always seems to prove that the Globe is warming.