Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but that type of rationing in the U.S. only seems to work if there is a collective agreement on an existential crisis (e.g. WWII).

Unfortunately, there's still too much disagreement on climate change at the population level for that level of shared sacrifice.

You're fighting against strawmen, which is understandable when everybody is afraid to talk unless it's to repeat the 'right' thoughts. It's quite obvious that greenhouse gases can increase temperatures. A basic understanding of how high frequency energy is converted into low frequency energy as is absorbed/emitted by the Earth and how the greenhouse gases react to both forms of energy is sufficient to prove this.

Lindzen's main issue is that the models are completely broken. As one example of this there is the 'Holocene temperature conundrum.' If you run our models on all data we have from around 10k to 6k years ago they all show there should have been significant warming. Instead we know there was significant cooling. And the reason for this remains completely unknown. In effect we are trying to forecast many decades into the future using models that break, even on their training data! This is a major problem.

And your perception of warming increasing faster than expected is once again being driven by the media. Our warming has lagged far behind models. For instance the first major climate report was the IPCC's report in 1990. That's nice because it forecast out to 30 years, which is just about now! They predicted a global warming of 0.3C per decade with an uncertainty of 0.2C to 0.5C on the 'business as usual' forecast, which is what we have followed. In reality, we haven't come anywhere near that. You can find various global temperature data, but here [1] are NASA's data. In particular (going decade by decade):

- 1990 = starting point

- 2000 = -0.04 'increase'

- 2010 = 0.3 increase

- 2019 = 0.1 increase

The IPCC was expecting an increase of 0.9 by 2020, with a minimum increase of 0.6. We've increased a bit less than 0.4 degrees. We're not even falling within the bottom end of their rather generous interval. That's, again, a major problem.

You're also misunderstanding that 75% comment. What Wiki (and he) was saying is that the temperature response is nonlinear. He is arguing that there will be a fraction of the expected heating due to a nonlinear response. In particular CO2 concentration levels have increased by about 30% and are at 75% of his expected temperature increase for a doubling of CO2. Does this mean his predictions are wrong, or does it mean the heating will slow? And similarly, we are only 15% of the expected heating for IPCC predictions, which are going in the opposite direction. Are the IPCC wrong, or will the rate of heating accelerate? This is an extremely critical distinction because if it turns out that increasing levels do not result in accelerating heating, then there's basically no problem whatsoever. Note both sides agree we'll continue to see 'the hottest year on [modern] record' for the foreseeable future. This might be what drove you to believe we were seeing more heating than expected.

All this said, I somewhat tend to agree that this is a dumb experiment to be running. I'd much rather roll back emissions, but I think the current science surrounding the arguments for such is running in an increasing number of problems as we start to be able to falisify or validate predictions. They're mostly turning up false (or at the very bottom of ranges), yet the media continues running sensationalized fearmongering nonethless. I think this is irresponsible, at best.

[1] - https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This approach is called "cap and trade" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading), and the main political problem with it is that most of the people arguing for it turned out to be doing so in bad faith, at least here in the United States.

When there were lots of options for dealing with emissions on the table, including more intrusive ones like carbon taxes and outright emissions restrictions, cap and trade was the favored alternative of conservatives because it was "market-based." When President Obama settled on cap and trade in 2009 in order to get conservatives on board with doing something about climate, though, those same conservatives immediately turned on their heel and started denouncing it as an example of Obama's "socialism."

(Yes, they went from praising a policy as market-based to condemning the same policy as socialist. Such is the sorry state of American political discourse.)

So, the political problem is: if the appeal of cap and trade is that it should theoretically get the support of conservatives who would usually oppose action on climate, but those conservatives will stop supporting it the moment all the other options they like less are taken off the table, is there any point in offering them a cap and trade olive branch in the first place? How do you negotiate with a faction whose only goal for the negotiation is that you have to lose?

> When we modeled that to the earth, it predicted much higher temperatures than we have.

Source?

I did find one a year or so ago (from a site like 'skeptical science' or similar name), but when I dug into it the author cherry picked data to make his conclusion accurate and left off recent data. But, when I went to the author's own publications with current temperatures the model was accurate over the full time period. Merely the skeptic simply choose a time period ending that showed a short term divergence.

Well sure, he did original research.

If you are suggesting most people should do original climate research, you are going to be disappointed.

If I get cancer, I assume that consensus medical science is going to give me the best treatments.