On my software or version of DP there are 27 pages of this discussion. Why? I repeat what goes unanswered, that if skeptics have a case they should get it published somewhere else, in scientific journals, bring testimony to relevant US and international bodies, etc. Is there similar skepticism in other countries? If so, make alliances, have demonstrations (you could have an "Unearth Day" to reveal the evidence.) Or, you could relax and adopt the John McCain approach: if it is a problem, we should do something; if not, much of what is suggested to deal with it is good for other reasons: windmills, (when they are not causing cancer and killing birdies), are cleaner, efficient cars may cost less to operate, on and on. This issue isnt like tobacco or acid rain, where there may be a lobby that denies the science as your ally, as oil companies seem to accept the science and are adapting, as does the previously skeptical GOP. And if someday new evidence surfaces that says this isn't a problem after all, even better. Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper" had him play a health foods store owner transformed to the distant future, where he is told that health food science had been overturned, that banana cream pie was the best thing to eat rather than what he peddled in the past.
But come up with a plan: first tell us how the voluntary suggestions of the Paris conference are harming us and what we are missing out on by buying into the dominant science. Then tell us what we should do instead: pipelines, wilderness drilling as Trump suggested so, we can have "energy dominance" as he put it. Simply going back and forth on this or that latest article is hardly working to change minds and policy.
I have a plan, but it is unlikely that the people who demonize energy use will care for it.
The first step is to acknowledge that Humanity first and foremost has an energy problem, not a CO2 problem.
CO2 may well be a symptom, but limiting CO2 is not the solution.
Our problem is that we do not have enough naturally stored hydrocarbons in the ground, to allow
the people who are currently alive to live a first world life style for very long.
The path of humanity is unsustainable! This is a much greater problem, than if added CO2 can causes some warming.
The solution to the problem is energy storage, how does nature store energy, mostly as hydrocarbons.
Man made, carbon neutral, fuels, can allow humanity a sustainable path foreword, until we find a better solution.
Why are we not doing it already, economic viability! The man made fuels will become cost competitive,
when oil is between $85 and $95 a barrel.
Why would this be better than electric cars? It would address every aspect of transportation, (roughly 30% of global emissions)
with a solution that is already compatible with existing demand and infrastructure!
It also would dovetail in nicely with the surplus solar and wind duck curve.
This will happen without any regulation, and everyone will use the new fuel, because, it will be the lowest price one at the pump.
This would eliminate new CO2 emissions from all transport, globally, because the fuel is made from atmospheric CO2,
so the CO2 released when the fuel is burned, is net zero.
More important is that it would allow low density, poor duty cycle energy sources like wind and solar to
be stored seasonally, to be used when needed, not just when generated.
It would also separate global energy from the countries that have supplies of oil.
