I may have made an error in my wording,
No worries ; -)
If I had a nickle for every time I did that it would pay for my morning coffee.
...based on the idea that ...CO2 is causing detrimental harm.
That idea is based on some pretty solid science whereas none of the other possibilities global warming make sense.
Not sure why some are so quick to dismiss it.
You are making an argument based on an appeal to authority.
Not seeing that.
I do not necessarily accept such arguments, as many have motives, i.e. funding, reputation to consider.
Well, two things...first keep in mind those promoting disbelief also have motives. Secondly, most of that funding is what the government throws to keep universities running, not like they have to cry wolf to get funding. They'd just ask for a new collider or something.
I can not test their hypothesis in any way
If you can't test it and are unsure, then the you also can't disprove it. So why so passionate about it? Why believe only one side of it?
If a scientist tells me that the water in my cooking pot will boil at 212F and begin changing state into water vapor, I do not have to believe him. I can just test the hypothesis, and observe that the change of state of the liquid to a gas does in fact happen at 212F.. This makes it verifiable. This makes it Science.
Yes, and other scientists have repeated experiments and verified it. Lots of scientists, and lots of citizen-scientists. But, if you need a hadron-collider to test then yeah, it's difficult for everyone in the world to personally confirm the theory.
But that's not needed for climate change. For example, didn't you do greenhouse experiments in high-school? If you didn't, there are still lots of
experiments you can try at home.
Sabine recently did a
video on this very topic confirming your position of disbelief.
All human language could be categorized as propaganda,
Indeed. That's why it's important to have concensus of science facts where experiments have been repeated and to see the margins of error and understand how they were calculated.
The alleged consensus is not true.
I know you believe that, yet you have no proof of it.
The conclusions of impending climate catastrophe are decided by a few scientists on panels like the UN IPCC.
The IPCC doesn't do "science", that is experiements. They just report on the data assemble data from other scientists all over the world.
That doesn't mean that all scientists in the field are coming to these conclusions.
Again, I'm not seeing facts to back this up other than "I haven't personally tested and therefore disbelief any graph you post as it could be cherry-picked data even it's the last 20 years or 10 million years and it therefore my conclusion is it is false".
Do not corruption, ego, bribery, racketeering, and incompetence fall in to the category of 'the simplest answer?
Does that not also apply to those bamboozling others into believing there's doubt about the actual science?
...how are you going to sell this system to somebody who is destitute?...
If you go to homedepot, is the price difference between a new heat pump and natural-gas new furnace really that different? They look like they're about twice the cost per BTU. But for some, despite the natural gas costing them more, that can be a big difference.
Possibly that's why the government did the tax incentive for them. Depends on where you live, but a lot of states have rebates too. So doesn't look like much difference capitol-wise.
Modern humans require energy to flourish. We can't make enough batteries without destroying vast swaths of land
Destroying vast swaths of land, like we did in Montana with with strip-mining lignite? Or pretty much anything we've ever done to fuel modern society? Remember the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? History is littered with abuses. Can we do better? Pretty sure we can.
But what does less harm over all? Lithium batteries are highly recyclable, so like aluminum, at some point we'll dig less out of the ground just to top-off as we've already got most of what we need. You're never going to be able to say that about fossil fuels unless you start extracting it from air and making green-fuel.
Just focusing on the sins of one and ignoring the worst sins of the other is not good land stewardship. Sounds like you should be for this.
and poisoning ... the environment in the process.
As I recall, Lithium is "mined" from clay deposits and is somewhat toxic. So, wouldn't removing it from surface deposits actually be making the area less toxic? ; -)
As a non believer in Co2 induced catastrophe I would like to see every little boy in the Congo able to afford a propane stove to cook with, not for him to be slaving away in a cobalt pit until he is poisoned to death.
LFP doesn't use cobalt and won't suffer thermal run-away. A lot of the new ESS tech doesn't use anything rare (e.g., sodium batteries).
Because energy storage is not at parody with hydrocarbon fuels across the board.
LCOEs show Solar & Wind with ESS are currently at parity with the lowest form of hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas) and ESS prices are still falling.
Unless you are suggesting that we take the profit made on viable products (Ford Bronco) and use them to fund non viable products (Ford Lighning)
Hell no. We should just add a carbon tax to remove the CO
2 emitted by the ICE vehicle to correct the problem it causes. That gives consumers freedom of choice and let economics take it course.
The government will take our money and buy what they choose with it, and their donors will benefit greatly in the process.
Always has, always will. They don't need to make up a climate change boogie man to accomplish that.
Buy a couple of bottle jacks and lift your house up a foot and reattach. 12 inches will buy you 100 years. Never worry again!
Don't worry about it now. ; -)