Congratulations on your great victory! But unfortunately you have not presented any arguments. You have done a lot of chest pounding, appeals to authority, name calling and citing stuff that has nothing to do with anything. You have claimed to have training in a scientific field but you don't understand even the basics of how "science" works. You have worked as a technician with chemicals, so have I. I was a leader on our Hazmat Team. I took a great deal of chemistry in college, as well, as years of continuing education classes. None of that has anything to do with what we are discussing.
The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have no idea how the nonscientific “theory” that you are advocating is suppose to work. Are you trying to argue that the recent observed 20 year “pause” in global temperatures as measured by satellites was from CO2 emersions reductions in the US?
World wide emissions of CO2 are continuing to rise greatly during “the pause” while temperatures remained stable. None of the computer models used by the UN’s IPCC predicted this, in fact they all had less predictive value than random chance.
Whatever minor reductions in CO2 we have made in the United States have been completely overshadowed by increases from China, India and other developing nations. There are no alarmist advocates that I know of that claim that anything we have done in the US has had any meaningful effect on worldwide temperatures.
You are obviously a new comer when it comes to “arguing” about “global warming”. You do not even do a good job of parroting Bill Nye. You haven't presented an argument; you don't even seem to know what the actual arguments are. If you have an argument then go ahead and present it.
Secondly, that applies to only one of the world's atmospheres. We also have an aqueous atmosphere where the temperature has continued to rise during that period
You can believe what you want, as can I. I worry that you have been taken in by the opinion shifters.
Everybody acknowledges that Myron Ebell at CEI, Joe Bost at Heartland, Tim Phillips at AFP, and others have done a whiz bang job of shifting public opinion by spending a lot of money. Now the question has arisen was Exxon footing the bill.
I may not have been clear in my last post. I didn't mean to say that mitigation had ended. That will continue. And there will be many battles fought over that, both legally and politically.
But the US and the world have begun to move beyond mitigation and focus also on resilience to change. And they are not waiting on your approval.
I'm glad that you have had some chem courses. But I also had 28 hours of biology, 8 hours of geology, and 8 hours of physics. Additionally, because most of my work experience in atmospheric chemistry centered around volatile organic compounds, which happen to also be flammable, I know a lot about fire codes/NFPA. And on top of that, it all had to meet OSHA codes.
Earth Systems Science, is mainly a function of biology, chemistry, and geology/geography surrounded by physics. The carbon cycle is just one cycle but it can't be separated from the other cycles. The carbon cycle is dependent on the nutrient cycle and the hydro cycle. And vice versa.