Agree zedzz that climate thermoslayer article was the most interesting part of the thread and the introductory quote was apt:
"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you dont understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more. (Physicist Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951))
The complex Earth temperature regulation mechanisms illustrate that the 'greenhouse effect' is a terrific 'model' oversimplification - and used to capture public support, but causing a backlash when its limitations are examined and criticized.
Nevertheless, presumably scientists realize its limitations and increasing CO2 does appear to further excite the related temperature regulators causing greater turbulence in the weather. As ferronium posits, warmists or coolists may 'win' after the 'stall' concludes, but it does seem fairly reasonable to believe that greater variation in 'weather' results from increasing CO2 and so both groups may have their day in the sun, as it were, over time.
Seems pretty reasonable consequently to seek not to unduly increase CO2 in the atmosphere - especially as it seems to be pretty much optional. The argument also naturally gets heated because of the predisposition of people with broader (and quite legitimate) underlying environmental concerns to default to whatever involves less impact from human activity. Seems a fairly rational position to take in light of an ever-growing population of a species that would probably be viewed as of 'pestilential' proportions - if it wasn't people.
