There was quite the disinformation campaign for the dangers of smoking. Some of those deniers moved over to the paid global warming deniers front, like Singer, for one.
There we have it- the slander strategy. Every one of the hundreds of skeptical scientists has a cousin whose hairdresser's boyfried once bought gas at an Exxon station.
Measurements taken show that the earth has indeed warmed (precipitously out of a cold period) starting in the mid-late 1800s, and particularly in the last 20-30 years.
Please, don't believe everything the Goracle claims. In fact the hottest decade on record was the 1930's. Global temperatures have not warmed since 1995 (excluding the El Nino spike in 1998); they have been cooling since 2004.
Glaciers are melting. The arctic is melting.
No, it isn't.
simple chemistry shows that more CO2=less heat radiated.
That's your problem: simple chemistry. The atmosphere isn't simple- it's mindbogglingly complex. And nobody- nobody- can assign a temperature-forcing value to atmosperic carbon that isn't just a guess.
It is the case that thye vaunted models (which completely zero out the most significant greenhouse gas of all, water) have been utter and complete failures at predicting climate. Now, in conventional, nonreligious science, a hypothesis that fails to predict further data is referred to as "wrong."
current conventional scientific consensus is that we're affecting this by CO2 emissions?
False. Consensus is what we have regarding 'gravitational force is a function of mass over the square of distance'. Consensus is '12000 years ago we came out of the most recent Ice Age. Consensus is when just about everyone agrees. The idea that 'everyone' in the earth sciences community is on board with AGW is a demonstable falshood, a 'debate is over' dishonestly advanced by the Warmers.
Perhaps you'd like a list of *just the former AGW believers* who have turned skeptic?
Or ask yourself this: why is it that it's leading warmers like Mann and Hansen who keep getting caught fudging their data? One would think that would be the province of your imaginary corrupt Exxon-funded Holoc- er, AGW Deniers. And why is it that it's the guys like Hansen and Holdren who want to *prosecute* all disenters. Gee, that isn't the Scientific Methosd I studied.
Fact: there is not a shred of valid evidence connecting anthropogenic carbon with climate. Every supposed correlation has proven to be bogus- starting with the fabricated 'massive increasde' since 1800.
I mean, what's it going to take? Shall we wait until the horse is all the way out of the barn and onto the next continent until we do something,
There's the punch line. "Do something." Do what? perhaps you should do the arithmetic involved in abandoning fossil fuels. Since the maximum solar energy received (noon, equatorial Sahara) is only 1kw/m^2, and the Second Law tells us that the maximum theoretical transduction can only be 15-20%, start to crank out what it would take to raise wind and solar from 3% of curent US demand to 100% of future demand. (Don't forget backups or efficient surplus production and storage for nighttime).
Or just maybe, before we totally annihilate the world economy, we should think twice about believing the unsupported claims of approved liars and Green zealots.