What Climate Wars Did To Science

[bubble]

ok but for what 275 k americans they are biggest cO2 polluters on the planet and refused quatas in kyoto I believe.

so what next ?

[rkim291968]

Originally Posted by jsgolfer

And just because the overall changes have been much more intense than any of us have witnessed in our lifetime does not mean that it will be bad, who knows maybe it will be good.

I'd prefer a little warmer world than a cold one.  My two cents.

There are far more serious consequences than living in a warmer world.   Global warming is a symptom of all the things we are doing to ourselves.   A friend of mine visits China once a year.  After he's back, he's coughing for another month or two b/c of all the smoke he inhaled while he was in Shanghai.    Fishermen are going out of business b/c their old fishing gears are damaged by invasion of warmer climate water.    Even if one believes global warming is caused by men or not, we need to clean up the mess we make (or at least do our best to minimize the damage for future generations).

[Gunther]

There are far more serious consequences than living in a warmer world.   Global warming is a symptom of all the things we are doing to ourselves.   A friend of mine visits China once a year.  After he's back, he's coughing for another month or two b/c of all the smoke he inhaled while he was in Shanghai.    Fishermen are going out of business b/c their old fishing gears are damaged by invasion of warmer climate water.    Even if one believes global warming is caused by men or not, we need to clean up the mess we make (or at least do our best to minimize the damage for future generations).

Strongly concur with your last sentence. Do it because we SHOULD, not because it's regulated.

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgolfer

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdl

What makes me think it is human induced is that I've been colleagues with, talked with, and been to seminars given by a number of very smart, professionally well informed people who work in climate modeling.  According to every well informed person I've ever personally talked with, nothing is up for debate except just how bad things will get given various possible trajectories of global emissions.  My opinion is based (in part of course, I'm just generally informed as a citizen who reads and understands science and statistics) on their work and their deep knowledge of the literature on the subject.

But even just as an informed citizen, it should be obvious.  You prove the point yourself just in the last two links, one from you and one you commented on approvingly.  Everyone in the climate modeling space will agree that there is uncertainty in how bad we're making things.  There are studies that suggest, like the one linked to above through the Duke page, that things will be "moderate", as in only disastrous.  Then there are other studies that suggest climate change will be extreme, as in a serious risk to civilization (and the earth) as we know it.  Claiming that fact as evidence for a climate-denier position is like claiming that the fact you're not sure whether the person you put in the hospital by beating them with a baseball is going to die or not is evidence that we can't be sure whether you beat them with the bat and caused the injuries.

Except that according to the models, with the global emissions continuously going up, the disastrous warming that the models indicate hasn't occurred.  So either the planet is better at coming into it's own mass balance with CO2 or there is something wrong with the models.  Calling anyone who disagrees with the disastrous warming as a climate denier is wrong (ad hominem IMO). I've never denied the climate is changing, it always has and always will.  Just how much is our fault versus natural means is up for debate.  You believe that we are responsible and I think we have a small part.  But calling someone with who you disagree with as uninformed or somehow not able to adequately understand the issue, is disingenuous.

Appealing to authority does not prove a point, nor change reality (NOAA is cooking the temperature record).  And the popularity of an idea is also no guarantee that it's right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdl

The link about ice in the Hudson Bay is a complete non-sequitur.  Weather is variable, there are all kinds of complex systems and cycles, and just because we've already caused significant warming there will still be cold spells in particular regions and whatnot.  This is a classic climate-denier propaganda tactic.  See GOP congress members claiming that a bad winter in DC is definitive evidence that global warming is a hoax.  If I can find 10 (or 10,000) adult men who are 6', 165 lbs, does that prove that it's a left-wing/ivory-tower hoax that Americans are (much) fatter than they were 100 years ago?

I posted the link because I find it comical, nothing more, nothing less.  Weather is extremely variable, and climate is much more complex.  We are talking about a chaotic system, with so many variables and processes that they really don't fit nicely into a GCM.  Why would you trust a model that has to be hand-tuned to match retrospective data to be accurate going forward, unless that model had been observed to have a high degree of accuracy when actually run forward for a while (a test every climate model has failed at so far).

Yes, anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove something happening at the global level but I will bet if the sea ice was down, someone would use it that way.  Seems like every weather event is used for evidence that climate change is occurring and it's because I drive a car instead of an electric car.

So what do we have at the end of the day.

That climate changes at every instance and along` every time scale. There are warm spells, ice ages, droughts, extreme rainfall, etc. The fact that the climate will change and continue to change is unfortunately not a human invention, although there are those who wish we could alter the climate.  And just because the overall changes have been much more intense than any of us have witnessed in our lifetime does not mean that it will be bad, who knows maybe it will be good.

I'd prefer a little warmer world than a cold one.  My two cents.

Bingo. We are not "deniers." We are just skeptical of group-think, as I think we all should be. To me, when the media and government is all soooooooo seemingly 100% behind something and sooooooo 100% vitriolic to any opposers- that's when my spidey-sense kick in that's something could be amiss and I get skeptical. Not tinfoil-crazy skeptical like a faked moon landing or 9/11 conspiracy, but stuff that directly relates to a political position. Beware alignment of media and government. The whole idea of "settled science" and that others questioning that science are "troglodytes" (right, Jerry Brown) is off-putting.

The crux of the matter is the planet's sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and there is some reason to believe that our government is using the high end ranges of older studies, just to make things seem more gloom and doom than it perhaps is- to serve their own political purposes.

As a quick background for some, the term "climate sensitivity" refers to the warming that we expect due to greenhouse effect of doubling of CO2 .  Yes warming is real, and greenhouse effect is real (the question is how much). Here are a couple good links recently on the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 changes:

1. Roy Spencer (be warned, he is condemned as a nut job by those promoting alarm, but you decide if the science is valid. There are some references to check.)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/

Quote:

Coincidentally, the 1.3 deg. C best estimate for the climate sensitivity from this graph is the same as we got with our 1D forcing-feedback-mixing climate model , and as I recently got with a simplified model that stores energy in the deep ocean at the observed rate (0.2 W/m2 average since the 1950s).

Again, the remaining radiative forcing in the 15 years of data causes decorrelation and (almost always) an underestimate of the feedback parameter (and overestimate of climate sensitivity). So, the real sensitivity might be well below 1.3 deg. C, as Lindzen believes. The inherent problem in diagnosing feedbacks from observational data is one which I am absolutely sure exists — and it is one which is largely ignored. Most of the “experts” who are part of the scientific consensus aren’t even aware of it, which shows how a small obscure issue can change our perception of how sensitive the climate system is.

This is also just one example of why hundreds (or even thousands) of “experts” agreeing on something as complex as climate change really doesn’t mean anything. It’s just group think in an echo chamber riding on a bandwagon.

Now, one can legitimately argue that the relationship in the above graph is still noisy, and so remains uncertain. But this is the most important piece of information we have to observationally determine how the real climate system responds radiatively to surface temperature changes, which then determines how big a problem global warming might be.

It’s clear that the climate models can be programmed to get just about any climate sensitivity one wants…currently covering a range of about a factor of 3! So, at some point we need to listen to what Mother Nature is telling us. And the above graph tells us that the climate system appears to be more stable than the experts believe.

2. Dr. Pat Michaels (he is also vilified by those promoting alarm- you decide if he presents a valid case by checking his references, take it for what it's worth to you). July 2015- very recent.

https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya  (goes with chart below)

Quote:

The link to Dr Michaels' congressional testimony above is compelling to me, but feel free to research him to see if he his credible (many think not). Please watch it all. Dr Michaels said this later about his own video testimony above:

" In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant.  As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers , or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multi-authored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead  authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers. Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him."

The key part in bold: "people who did not recognize low-sensitivity papers were in fact science deniers."

As I've said, it all boils down to how sensitive the planet is to CO2, and this is some evidence that politicians and government agencies are using high end estimates, as are some models. The media falls in line, uncritically. Many of these studies show that doubling CO2 will increase by 1-2 C. That is not calamity, from what I understand.  It is not great stewardship of our earth, and we must do better. It is also not a crisis of epic proportions that we must enact carbon taxes for immediately. I believe it's more likely we have time to figure this out.

We have fought hard for freedoms, and I will never take lightly giving them up so easily on science that is not fully vetted. If this is indeed a long-term problem (I think most definitely it is a problem, but torn on what time frame), unleash free people to solve it. If we, the people, are so evil and corrupt as a society to not see the benefits of caring for our planet (and we "need" the government to fix it), that is a SAD state of affairs for humanity. We have to trust in the ingenuity and basic goodness of our people to solve this. The government does not have a monopoly on ingenuity and goodness, far from it.

I'd strongly prefer our government does not restrict things by issuing futile regulations that do more harm than good (raising energy prices would likely hurt the economy and poor people could be hardest hit). Particularly when the science doesn't prove that this is an imminent threat to humanity.

[No Mulligans]

From this article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

Quote:

A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.

[mdl]

I'm not personally expert enough, nor do I have deep enough knowledge of the field and its literature, to take down every single denier quoted fact or curmudgeon.  But just step back for a second.  It's a known physical fact that CO2 and methane are green house gases that trap heat near the earth's surface and warm the climate.  A historically unprecedented warming has occurred exactly concurrently with humans increasing the level of CO2 by nearly 50% over just 200 years.  The other, non-human-caused physical changes in that time period that could contribute are conflicting or indeterminate.  Among thousands of scientists who've independently analyzed this problem from a huge number of points of view and angles, there are literally only a handful of curmudgeons whose work hasn't led them to conclude that global warming is real and that humans are mostly responsible.  Among the millions of people who deny that this conclusion is true, essentially 100% are not themselves scientists or knowledgable in any personal way, and essentially 100% are in fact political conservatives who are, first and foremost, skeptical of or dislike liberals, academics, and the sort of serious government regulation that dealing with global warming requires.

Given these sets of facts, is it really more likely that nearly 100% of the people who've dedicated their lives to analyzing and studying this issue from a rational, dispassionate, scientific point of view have been brainwashed and have developed a complex, dispersed, interwoven body of work that provides strong evidence but have colluded to universally exclude a few absolutely key pieces of information.  Or that a group of people predisposed to dislike both the sorts of people making the climate change argument and the sorts of government actions it requires in response have grabbed whatever straws are available to convince themselves that nearly every scientist in the world with personal expertise in a critical, widely studied topic is wrong and deluded and that the three or four curmudgeons who agree are the only ones who understand?

[phillyk]

I'm not personally expert enough, nor do I have deep enough knowledge of the field and its literature, to take down every single denier quoted fact or curmudgeon.  But just step back for a second.  It's a known physical fact that CO2 and methane are green house gases that trap heat near the earth's surface and warm the climate.  A historically unprecedented warming has occurred exactly concurrently with humans increasing the level of CO2 by nearly 50% over just 200 years.  The other, non-human-caused physical changes in that time period that could contribute are conflicting or indeterminate.  Among thousands of scientists who've independently analyzed this problem from a huge number of points of view and angles, there are literally only a handful of curmudgeons whose work hasn't led them to conclude that global warming is real and that humans are mostly responsible.  Among the millions of people who deny that this conclusion is true, essentially 100% are not themselves scientists or knowledgable in any personal way, and essentially 100% are in fact political conservatives who are, first and foremost, skeptical of or dislike liberals, academics, and the sort of serious government regulation that dealing with global warming requires.

Given these sets of facts, is it really more likely that nearly 100% of the people who've dedicated their lives to analyzing and studying this issue from a rational, dispassionate, scientific point of view have been brainwashed and have developed a complex, dispersed, interwoven body of work that provides strong evidence but have colluded to universally exclude a few absolutely key pieces of information.  Or that a group of people predisposed to dislike both the sorts of people making the climate change argument and the sorts of government actions it requires in response have grabbed whatever straws are available to convince themselves that nearly every scientist in the world with personal expertise in a critical, widely studied topic is wrong and deluded and that the three or four curmudgeons who agree are the only ones who understand?

It's hard to tell who's politically driven to go one way or another when it comes to "studies".  But, the truth of the matter is, is that global warming is happening regardless of how much is human driven and physically driven.  It doesn't matter anymore how much is human caused or naturally caused, we are along for the ride now.  It's really easy to see given the cold hard data.  The part that is really in question is can we do something about it, and or is it really a problem?  The media and politicians want an answer as to whether humans can fix global warming themselves.  Global warming and cooling is completely natural and has occurred many times throughout history.  Along with that comes with its share of extinction and speciation events.  The extinction currently underway has been faster than some previous extinction events, and humans definitely have a part in that with our expanding population and gathering of resources.  Ice sheets and glaciers have generally been decreasing for a while now, but seemed to have stabilized somewhat in the last year. Maybe we've hit the bottom with them? I don't know yet, we'll see in another 5 to 10 yrs.  So, is it really a problem now?  I'm not convinced.  I know that global warming exists, obviously, but it's not really a big deal to me.  I'm more concerned with finding better energy efficiency and expanding on carbon nano tubes...  Will that stabilize global warming?  Probably not.  The atmosphere and nature, in general, will find a way to balance itself eventually, given a few million years.

[Lihu]

It's hard to tell who's politically driven to go one way or another when it comes to "studies".  But, the truth of the matter is, is that global warming is happening regardless of how much is human driven and physically driven.  It doesn't matter anymore how much is human caused or naturally caused, we are along for the ride now.  It's really easy to see given the cold hard data.  The part that is really in question is can we do something about it, and or is it really a problem?

Right, it's unclear if any of the climate changes are reversible through ineffective policies. We need to focus on the actual problem, and that entails being flexible and intelligent just to determine the extent of changes.

[mdl]

It's hard to tell who's politically driven to go one way or another when it comes to "studies".  But, the truth of the matter is, is that global warming is happening regardless of how much is human driven and physically driven.  It doesn't matter anymore how much is human caused or naturally caused, we are along for the ride now.  It's really easy to see given the cold hard data.  The part that is really in question is can we do something about it, and or is it really a problem?

This makes no sense.  It's just a more judicious sounding rewording of the denier position.  If you're a gambling addict, do you look at your bank account, acknowledge that the data show definitively that you're going broke, but then declare that it's impossible to know what the cause is and decide you're just along for the ride and that you can't/shouldn't do anything to change the trajectory of your bank account balance?

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyk

It's hard to tell who's politically driven to go one way or another when it comes to "studies".  But, the truth of the matter is, is that global warming is happening regardless of how much is human driven and physically driven.  It doesn't matter anymore how much is human caused or naturally caused, we are along for the ride now.  It's really easy to see given the cold hard data.  The part that is really in question is can we do something about it, and or is it really a problem?

This makes no sense.  It's just a more judicious sounding rewording of the denier position.  If you're a gambling addict, do you look at your bank account, acknowledge that the data show definitively that you're going broke, but then declare that it's impossible to know what the cause is and decide you're just along for the ride and that you can't/shouldn't do anything to change the trajectory of your bank account balance?

Gambling isn't exactly analogous to climate change. I would compare climate change to a person getting MS. There's not a lot they can do to cure it as of yet, but there is something they can do to comfort the symptoms. Maybe MS is a bit too strong as well because we don't really know that the effects will be that bad. I doubt it would be the end of the world, but it will take some adjustments to get used to the climate changes.

I'm also not that confident that a true solution includes reversal, but at the same time we should reduce out consumption of resources anyway.

[mdl]

Gambling isn't exactly analogous to climate change. I would compare climate change to a person getting MS. There's not a lot they can do to cure it as of yet, but there is something they can do to comfort the symptoms. Maybe MS is a bit too strong as well because we don't really know that the effects will be that bad. I doubt it would be the end of the world, but it will take some adjustments to get used to the climate changes.

I'm also not that confident that a true solution includes reversal, but at the same time we should reduce out consumption of resources anyway.

Except you aren't causing yourself to get MS.  It's more like working in an asbestos mine, if you want to go health problem analogy.  You're not totally sure whether you can reverse all the built up effects of the time you've spent in the mine.  But it's ridiculous to pretend you can't be sure what's causing all the health problems among miners and shouldn't bother making any changes just because you're not sure whether you can reverse all the effects by stopping going in the mine every day or exactly what percentage of the miners are going to die young (when you know it's a lot).

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Gambling isn't exactly analogous to climate change. I would compare climate change to a person getting MS. There's not a lot they can do to cure it as of yet, but there is something they can do to comfort the symptoms. Maybe MS is a bit too strong as well because we don't really know that the effects will be that bad. I doubt it would be the end of the world, but it will take some adjustments to get used to the climate changes.

I'm also not that confident that a true solution includes reversal, but at the same time we should reduce out consumption of resources anyway.

Except you aren't causing yourself to get MS.  It's more like working in an asbestos mine, if you want to go health problem analogy.  You're not totally sure whether you can reverse all the built up effects of the time you've spent in the mine.  But it's ridiculous to pretend you can't be sure what's causing all the health problems among miners and shouldn't bother making any changes just because you're not sure whether you can reverse all the effects by stopping going in the mine every day or exactly what percentage of the miners are going to die young (when you know it's a lot).

This is where we fundamentally differ.

I agree with your advocating reduction of resources, but just don't think the data demonstrates any possibility of reversal or correction.

[phillyk]

This makes no sense.  It's just a more judicious sounding rewording of the denier position.  If you're a gambling addict, do you look at your bank account, acknowledge that the data show definitively that you're going broke, but then declare that it's impossible to know what the cause is and decide you're just along for the ride and that you can't/shouldn't do anything to change the trajectory of your bank account balance?

Can you control the sun cycles? Can you control whether solar flares occur or whether hot/cold cycles of output or how much it effects our climate?  Can you control the magnitude of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes and whether it will put the earth into a year without sunny days?  Natural events occur all the time that we have zero control over.  We can measure it and prepare for the eventuality of it, but we can't control whether it occurs or not.  Yes, we can measure certain CO2 and methane outputs to a certain degree, but to say that we can control it's every degree of change is not reasonable.  Global warming is occurring both human made and naturally.  If we all of a sudden stopped human made emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect, global warming would still be present.

[newtogolf]

This makes no sense.  It's just a more judicious sounding rewording of the denier position.  If you're a gambling addict, do you look at your bank account, acknowledge that the data show definitively that you're going broke, but then declare that it's impossible to know what the cause is and decide you're just along for the ride and that you can't/shouldn't do anything to change the trajectory of your bank account balance?

What we know

• CO2 is a cause of global warming
• There are currently increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

What we don't know,

• how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by our use of fossil fuels.
• What impact the earths axis shift has had on global warming,
• Would the elimination of fossil fuel use reverse the effects of global warming and in what timeframe

The analogy is closer to someone who smokes getting cancer.   It's possible smoking led to cancer and it's also possible the use of cigarettes is completely unrelated to their cancer.  It's also not clear if not smoking would have any impact on future instances of cancer.  You and the other doomsdayers want to speak in definitive terms yet nothing has been proven or substantiated except the basic argument that eliminating fossil fuels couldn't hurt.

Sorry but I'm not putting hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs that work in the coal and oil industry on a "it can't hurt" argument.

[phillyk]

I should also say, that I understand the effects of increased CO2, especially in the marine environment due to my college degree.  The increased CO2 makes the ocean slightly more acidic which has drastic consequences in coral formation.  It destroys certain species that are very sensitive to temperature and acidity, and is starting to change where and when certain blooms occur which provide those rich feeding grounds for so many organisms in the ocean.  If I could change that I would, but i also understand that change is inevitable.  They die or adapt to the changing conditions.  Unfortunately, from what I've read, it looks like the changes in the ocean chemistry are occurring too fast for successful adaptation.  It will suck, I know, but can we change our atmosphere quick enough to compensate for the damage already done?  I don't think so.

[mdl]

What we know

CO2 is a cause of global warming

There are currently increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

What we don't know,

how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by our use of fossil fuels.

What impact the earths axis shift has had on global warming,

Would the elimination of fossil fuel use reverse the effects of global warming and in what timeframe

The analogy is closer to someone who smokes getting cancer.   It's possible smoking led to cancer and it's also possible the use of cigarettes is completely unrelated to their cancer.  It's also not clear if not smoking would have any impact on future instances of cancer.  You and the other doomsdayers want to speak in definitive terms yet nothing has been proven or substantiated except the basic argument that eliminating fossil fuels couldn't hurt.

Sorry but I'm not putting hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs that work in the coal and oil industry on a "it can't hurt" argument.

You're dodging my question above.  Basically 100% of the thousands of people who've studied the issue from all different starting points and with various types of data and models agree that humans have caused the increase in CO2 and that the various natural cycles/effects pointed to by deniers fail to account for the majority of observed warming and CO2 level increase.  IOW, your list of "what we don't know" is in fact false.  We do know those things, or at least we know within confidence bounds that your interpretation is entirely false.

You're implicitly claiming that essentially 100% of the experts who've ever studied this question are in collusion to pull off an unprecedented, complex, distributed hoax, and the non-experts looking for evidence that supports their prior political preferences (no pricing of externalities) understand the science and data better.

And the "it can't hurt" argument is one only made in the right wing media as a straw man on behalf of those who support regulating GHG emissions.  The actual argument is that we're nearly certain we're causing a disaster, and we should make every effort to minimize the damage we have/are going to cause.

[newtogolf]

You're dodging my question above.  Basically 100% of the thousands of people who've studied the issue from all different starting points and with various types of data and models agree that humans have caused the increase in CO2 and that the various natural cycles/effects pointed to by deniers fail to account for the majority of observed warming and CO2 level increase.  IOW, your list of "what we don't know" is in fact false.  We do know those things, or at least we know within confidence bounds that your interpretation is entirely false.

You're implicitly claiming that essentially 100% of the experts who've ever studied this question are in collusion to pull off an unprecedented, complex, distributed hoax, and the non-experts looking for evidence that supports their prior political preferences (no pricing of externalities) understand the science and data better.

And the "it can't hurt" argument is one only made in the right wing media as a straw man on behalf of those who support regulating GHG emissions.  The actual argument is that we're nearly certain we're causing a disaster, and we should make every effort to minimize the damage we have/are going to cause.

You're ignoring my point, what percentage of increased CO2 is directly attributable to fossil fuels? I am not arguing that there hasn't been an increase in CO2 (see my 2nd bullet point on what we know), I want to know what portion is related strictly to fossil fuels.  I've not used the word hoax or any words that insinuate it, I just want facts not theories.

The ecosystem is a delicate balance.  Reduce the amount of oxygen and the percentage of CO2 and nitrogen will increase in the atmosphere.  Reduced oxygen could be due to reduction of woodlands, pollution of lakes and rivers, increase in human population and numerous other things (including the burning of fossil fuels).

You've provided no proof just conjecture.  If you're going to gain national support to put the entire oil and coal industry out of business you need more than the standard liberal rhetoric.

[mdl]

You're ignoring my point, what percentage of increased CO2 is directly attributable to fossil fuels?  I am not arguing that there hasn't been an increase in CO2 (see my 2nd bullet point on what we know), I want to know what portion is related strictly to fossil fuels.  I've not used the word hoax or any words that insinuate it, I just want facts not theories.

The ecosystem is a delicate balance.  Reduce the amount of oxygen and the percentage of CO2 and nitrogen will increase in the atmosphere.  Reduced oxygen could be due to reduction of woodlands, pollution of lakes and rivers, increase in human population and numerous other things (including the burning of fossil fuels).

You've provided no proof just conjecture.  If you're going to gain national support to put the entire oil and coal industry out of business you need more than the standard liberal rhetoric.

My point is that if you look at the literature your questions are answered.  They're only unanswered in the right wing echo chamber.  There is decades of study.  Nearly 100% of the people who've dedicated their lives to studying this have come to the conclusion that your questions are in fact answered.  The lion's share of the increase in CO2 is due to human carbon emissions, and it is causing and will continue to cause ever more damaging climate change.

You can't pretend to be on the high ground, just asking questions, if in fact those questions have been answered with decades of scientific study by thousands of independent scientists, and the only ones pretending they're not answered is people with prior political ideologies that don't allow them to accept an answer that will require policy they despise ideologically.