Question for the 'denier' cult

[longview]

And are those efforts enough?

We cannot be on the wrong side of that answer.

Again there is no wrong side, Civilization will not collapse because we burn too much hydrocarbon fuel.
Civilization could well collapse if we run out, but not from the warming that would result from burning it.
As I have said, we have a very real energy problem, not a CO2 problem.
We need to be working on our energy problem, instead of wasting effort and money on a perceived CO2 problem.
When we solve our energy problem, any issue with CO2 will be solved as a side effect.

 

[haymarket]

Again there is no wrong side, Civilization will not collapse because we burn too much hydrocarbon fuel.

And if you are wrong? What then?

What if civilization goes on for most - but for a minority things change so drastically that it effectively ends for them?

Is that acceptable for you?

 

[longview]

And if you are wrong? What then?

What if civilization goes on for most - but for a minority things change so drastically that it effectively ends for them?

Is that acceptable for you?

Please consider some of the data,
in the 1820's Joseph Fourier theorized that the earth was warmer than it should be,
that the atmosphere acted like the glass in a hothouse.
Later, others like Maxwell, qualified that the earth should be at 255 K, but is actually at 288 K, a 33C difference.
This same 33C is in use today.
NASA's Cosmos

Right now, the warming influence is literally a matter of life and death. It keeps the average surface temperature of the planet at 288 degrees kelvin (15 degrees Celsius or 59 degrees Fahrenheit). Without this greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be 255 degrees kelvin (-18 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Fahrenheit);

GISS's Gavin Schmidt says that CO2 accounts for about 20% of the warming.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect

We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption,
with clouds responsible for about 25% —
and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect.

If CO2 accounts for 20% of the 33C, that is 6.6 C,
If we start with CO2 at 1 ppm, it takes 8 doubling s to get to 256 ppm, ~the pre industrial level,
so each doubling (Including ALL of the feedbacks) is 6.6/8= .825 C.
Since other research places the no feedback response of a CO2 doubling at 1.1C, it means that
the feedbacks that exists are negative, not positive, and that 3C ECS for a doubling of CO2 is not possible.