For those who accept the AGW construct, the first 6 questions miss the point that an ideal level of these phenomena is not the issue. The problem is change within an interrelated, dynamic system, that occurs too unevenly and/or rapidly for the system to adapt and maintain a critical balance. The assumption is that we would prefer not to have the biological system collapse abruptly. That the climate changed before without human intervention (as suggested in Question 7) does not make rapid climate change desirable now. Just as Edmund Burke realized about politics, too much change too fast crashes the whole system, with disastrous results for society (example: Bolshevik Revolution massively changed Russian society and economy resulting in collapse, starvation, massive die-offs — I was too much of a bad thing too fast).
AGW theory has an internal logic that is compelling — if all factors of an extremely complex system have really been considered. As always, GIGO happens.
For me the difficult questions for AGW are:
1) How do we know that all the data has been collected accurately, and weighted properly, as opposed to having been massaged (or effected by confirmation bias) to create outcomes that fit the theory?
2) How do we know that all effects of a dynamic system have been considered, when the system is subject to natural inputs that are not fully known or anticipated (effect of future solar activity, oceanic CO2 and heat absorption, heat dissipation into outer space, etc.), and the manner in which climate change itself changes the way the climate changes?
3) The killer: What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed remedies for AGW will have the anticipated effect on the climatic stability. What is the total cost? Does it make sense to incur such enormous costs entirely on speculation? Have prior attempts to manipulate nature of a vast scale worked out as anticipated, or were there unintended consequences?
Politicians ignore the fact that there is absolutely ZERO information on item 3. This is all about redistribution of wealth for political benefit.
“3) The killer: What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed remedies for AGW will have the anticipated effect on the climatic stability. What is the total cost? Does it make sense to incur such enormous costs entirely on speculation? Have prior attempts to manipulate nature of a vast scale worked out as anticipated, or were there unintended consequences?”
Cost of mitigation is enormous. And given that some regions will cool while others warm, and those regions are as yet vague or even unknown, adaptionm rather than expensive preemptive mitigation, if even needed, is the wiser more cost effective path.
“Politicians ignore the fact that there is absolutely ZERO information on item 3. This is all about redistribution of wealth for political benefit.”
There has been a multitude of UN officials who’ve openly admitted it.