Thanks, Dobrien. I have read about much of what you mention, but certainly not even remotely mastered the information. I followed the Web site WattsUp ("the world's most visited Web site on climate change." There is little they don't touch upon. A wrote a whole article on the attacks on scientist Willie Soon who pursues studies of the causality of climate change in solar terms, as I understand it.

Yes. I'm obviously against the attacks on capitalism, which are real. The calls for sweeping and intrusive political action are real. Reality doesn't care. We can't deny things because of final consequences.

Thanks for the well written explaination Walter .
You mention the Suns role and in fact that is the driver of temp increases from Late 1800's to 1998
Unfortunately this heat hysteria has been a constant drum beat for the last 2 decades and it could not have happened at a worse time. The Grand Solar minimum, that cycle of the sun. We have now entered into the begining of what in the past has been referred to as a mini ice age.
It has weakened our electromagnetisphere and the results as history shows is a devastation of crop losses. In addition over the last 2000 years a major volcano blows during each grand solar minimum spewing huge amounts of particles blocking out the sun like the clouds that are formed by the cosmic rays.
Not only normalcy but the AGW will certainly hurt our adjustment to indoor farming which absolutely will be required for survival.
Obviously you should not take my word, but you should seriously look into it. As a starting point Adapt2030 will give reference points to his info and he encourages every listener to do their own homework. Suspicious observers gives a rundown on the space weather. Then John Casey a highly credited man and his book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTJCY...

I think you are referring to my statement: "Seldom has a scientific viewpoint been so motivated to propagandize the school and colleges and popular press. The reason is clear: what is at stake is not a scientific theory and its supporting evidence.

/"What is at stake is a fundamentalist attack on capitalism..."

Meaning that "climate science" has been a propaganda machine on a vast scale... urging sweeping political action on its conclusions almost as soon as they are published and long before they are confirmed...

I talks about people make up politically-motivated nonsense like "capitalism will lead to catastrophe," and how history proves them wrong. Then it seems to say if other people are making stuff up that they wish were true, we ought to balance it by doing likewise.

The point about NYT is completely correct. NYT mentions "carbon pollution" twice in one article: https://nyti.ms/2stfsY5 I agree it's a questionable choice of words. We're talking about human activities playing a large roll in increasing the concentration of a gas that was 300ppm to 500ppm and changing concentrations of trace gases. That's not "pollution" like soot. From a legal/economic standpoint, though, it's something people do on their property that preponderance of the evidence shows damages the value of other property. So I can forgive them colloquially calling it "pollution," the same way we talk about "noise pollution".

I would go further on your counter-argument to the capitalism-leads-to-war argument. Not only were world wars not caused by capitalism, but modern capitalism has eliminated (so far) the spoils of war. If China assembles PCBs and "FANG" companies put them to use for a billion customers around the world, there's no incentive for the gov't to fight each other to try to have more of the value-chain within their borders. The saying goes no two countries that both have McDonalds have gone to war. (I think there are a few small counter examples, e.g. Serbia and US.)

I see the last two paragraphs completely reversed from your view. You rightly say never before has their been such motivation to get a specific answer from science. Maybe it's comparable to the motivation to find evidence humans were created rather than evolved along side other animals. All the wealth we have created by releasing energy stored in carbon bonds provides a huge incentive to deny science showing hidden costs to it. There are a few extremists you quote who apparently really are happy if it turns out what powers our economy is more costly than we thought. I do not know how those people think. I can't imagine anyone wants to go back to a pre-industrial existence. The vast majority of us want to find ways to keep building more wealth and we wish none of our actions accidentally damaged other people's property. Never before has there been so much motivation to get a desired answer, indeed.