The short version of the climate hysterics’ fossil fuel causes global warming farce is that use of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, that CO2 traps more heat and global temperatures rise. The ratio of how much temperature supposedly rises for each additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is referred to as the climate sensitivity to CO2. The climate hysterics use models, of course, to claim a very high sensitivity rate. The reason the models are so bad at predicting temperature is because the sensitivity is way too high. A new paper purports to assess CO2 sensitivity thoroughly. (JOC Article)
The paper is technical and you have to pay for it, but there is a great discussion at this website run by a climate realist. (NTZ Post) (The hysterics like to call them deniers, but since this group of scientists who aren’t ideologues actually believe in data and research, I prefer to call them realists.) As the post explains, this paper finds a sensitivity 40% lower than that used as the consensus figure by the hysterics. This means temperatures will rise far less than the hysterics wildly exclaim. Water vapor is also found not to be a postiive feedback for increasing CO2 levels, but to have a dampening or negative feedback. The paper’s findings also suggests that most of the warming in the past 150 years has been driven by natural processes. And the authors find that in some parts of the world, i.e. Antarctica, more CO2 actually means lower temperature. Guess all that ice won’t be melting after all.
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at 
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Overcast
PocketCasts
Radio Public
Stitcher
Anchor
RSS - Posts
I remember back in high school in my government class {68-69) there was talk about greenhouse gasses that could create global cooling or warming. All about how you wanted to interpret the information. I was thinking about how healthy the plant life would be and all the oxygen they would create. (biology the same years). CO2 is plant food!
I read the summary at the link provided and found it interesting, albeit with more technical references than I have background in. I do have an extensive background in financial modeling. One of the customary reviews performed on financial models is backtesting, where actual results for a period are compared to forecasted results, with the variances explained. The primary purpose of the backtesting process is to identify incorrect assumptions used throughout the model, which drive the results. One example is the forecasted behavior of depositors to a change in market interest rates. Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed largely due to an assumption that the behavior of large depositors would be unchanged if rates increased.
Climate modelers should perform a similar process and explain those variances…and politicians ask them why their models don’t reflect actual results, before running down the EV rabbit-hole.