Thread by @ncdave4life

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni 1/6. That's mostly correct, @DanCady, but:

1. It's a bit of a strawman, and

2. It's also a lot more complicated than that.

It's a strawman because the climate debate is about whether global warming is harmful or helpful, not whether it's real.

quora.com/Did-30-000-sci…

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni 2/6. It's more complicated than that because, for example, Feldman's measurements indicate that CO2's radiative forcing is substantially less than what is assumed in most climate models:
sealevel.info/Radiative_Forc…

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni 3/6. Additionally, measurements show that "climate sensitivity" to increased CO2 concentration is considerably less than what is assumed in most climate models.

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni 4/6. Also, your #5 swaps cause & effect. GHGs surely have large influence on climate, but paleoclimate data give scant evidence of it. Instead they show (de)glaciation cycles greatly affect atmospheric CO2 level: CO2 trend reversals lag temperature trend reversals by 100s of yrs.

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni 5/6. Plus, your #6 misses the boat on climate feedbacks. It sounds like you're only aware of the "positive" (amplifying) feedback, which increases warming due to CO2 emissions, and not "negative" (attenuating) feedback, which decreases the warming.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni 6/6. The evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful. The major harms from CO2 are all hypothetical, & mostly implausible. The major benefits are measured, & very large.

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni @threadRip @rattibha @threadreaderapp @threader_app please unroll or compile this.

@KeillerDon @DanCady @GeraldKutney @Cambridge_Uni @threadreaderapp please unroll or compile this without ads.