That's not an argument. You ignored my points about big oil actually creating cap and trade schemes to profit from them.
Companies make money from profit margins and speculation and through whatever scheme they can devise to manipulate things to put them inside the curve. Sometimes companies play the long game and cut margins to drive competition out of business so that they can gain market share and ultimately raise margins more later.
When those within the industry come up with complicated regulations and taxes, this is not self-flagellation for their own guilt in harming the environment. This is to gain market share and improve public sentiment. If you write the rules of the game and you are big enough to afford a fleet of lawyers, you can promote taxation and regulation to improve your PR image while driving out competition.
A great history lesson on How Big Oil Conquered the World
It's not a matter of belief. You can go read the leaked emails where deliberate efforts were made to hide data that did not support the narrative.
Whenever governments throw billions of dollars into "scientific research" with an implicit foregone conclusion, the environment for corruption is created.
The truth is that there
is a theoretical basis to support the claim that increasing CO2 to the max will slightly raise the earth's average temp as much as about 1 degree Celsius. It's not a linear effect. There is a saturation point beyond which more CO2 has no effect on radiative heat transfer. We were already just under this saturation point before the industrial revolution began which is why quadrupling the CO2 can only theoretically raise temps about 1 degree C.
This is a THEORY based on a very simplified analysis of radiative heat transfer from atmosphere to space. One key prediction of this theory - that heating would be observed at the altitudes at which the atmosphere ceases to be opaque to radiation in the CO2 absorptive wavelengths - has not been observed.
All the catastrophic AGW predictions were based on models of undamped water vapor and polar ice cap feedback loops that amplified this 1 C increase into 5 C or more increase. But these feedback loop models have so far failed to pan out. It could be that the feedback loops are actually over dampened and the 1 C increase will actually plateau at only 0.8 C, but no one on the IPCC will explore an over-dampened feedbackloop model because that wouldn't fit the narrative so there's no incentive.
I'm with you: we need to invest in renewable energy. I put solar panels on my house and led lights in. Oil and gas needs to play a far less critical role in our infrastructure and industry. But we won't get there solely through top down controlling regulations and taxes (that can be manipulated by the biggest players to their benefit) on the very air we exhale to a global government which were sold to us with untruthful narratives and forced upon us with threats of Soviet-style violence (arrest the climate change deniers!).
Your cards lie to you.
