could catastrophic climate change conceivably be --- a con?

.. CO2 is faaar up - shockingly ...

  .. polar/glacier ice really is melting ...

    .. but consider; means, motive, and opportunity?

(Terminology; excess CO2-caused catastrophic climate-change = e-CO2_c**4.)

Preamble, 1: To the Q: Is it a con, my instincts scream a big, fat "No!" - but for the record, instincts are like aaar ... err, opinions (everyone has them - and often differing); sooo - better to look to the actual evidence. Also, in considering possible 'conspiracies,' we are advised to seek the *simplest* explanation (but also recalling: eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable...)

Preamble, 2: The situation is 'tail wagging dog;' i.e. various inconvenient 'facts' (researched/presented via professional scientists) are driving the (puppet?) politicians, with the (corrupt & venal) MSM along for 'the ride.' ('Facts' written within quotes due to dispute; see next.)

Preamble, 3: As usual, neither the puppet politicians nor the corrupt & venal MSM (incl. big bits of the AusBC) can be trusted to tell us the truth - in sad fact, the exact opposite most often obtains; we (the sheople/voters) are awash in a sea of consciously produced marketing, lies & outright propaganda (arch-example: no  Iraqi WMDs! - 100s of 1000s, if not 1.3mio+ dead; murder for oil) - with any truth far more often than not lonely outliers. In this case, so-called 'climate-sceptics' (aka denialists) assert that the science is either not proven - or worse, the reported 'facts' have been fiddled, fabricated - or otherwise f**ked-up.

-=*=-

Arguments: As part of 'means, motive, and opportunity,' we can consider who might win (cui bono) or lose from catastrophic climate change, in the two cases a) if we do nothing (or too little), and our ecosphere gets catastrophied, or b) if we manage to somehow scrape through and avoid it. The case c) if we do (as good as) nothing and nothing much happens to the climate, is called 'business as usual' and/or 'more of the same,' both of which imply the rich getting ever more filthily richer, and the rest, i.e. the middle class & poor all 'going down' a step or three - which would mean more and deeper into poverty; fewer to no medical services affordable. Case (c) can only happen *if* e-CO2_c**4 actually *is* a con, the headline question. Let's see...

Re-ordering on cui bono, we must ask, Q: What's in it for the tail-wagging 'pushers' (aka the pro-e-CO2_c**4 scientists)? A: Possibly fame, probably more (paid) studies, vanishingly likely 'carpets of gold,' aka riches beyond avarice. Preliminary conclusion: possible scientists' motives a bit underwhelming. (I've seen trolls suggesting that the scientists wish to see our once jewel-like planet de-industrialised. Talk about 'improbable!') Another suggestion (Abbott&Co) is that Lab's ETS is a (disguised) tax, this implies that a) Abbott *accepts* the e-CO2_c**4 threat (otherwise he'd have to *deny* e-CO2_c**4 - I don't see him doing that); b) that Lab's ETS will be effective (otherwise Abbott'd have to say so), and *only then* c) that the tax is a deplorable and avoidable side-effect - which is his position, i.e. on the way to screeching "tax!", Abbott has accepted e-CO2_c**4, and that Lab's ETS could be effective in stopping it.

IF it's a conspiracy pushed by pro-e-CO2_c**4 scientists, THEN it must be a bloody good one; apart from massive scientific solidarity (with only a small minority of denialists), it's 'hooked' the world's politicians - to the point that they feel that they have to do something - hence Kyoto, hence Copenhagen.

More cui bono, we have seen that the do-nothing case (c) could only benefit the already obscenely-rich fat-cats, but what of the denialists, like the lying trolls, say? How do they benefit - unless they're collecting 30 shekels each? (Beats me; always has.)

The biggest question of all is Q: Can the politicians save the planet?

-=*end*=-

Some evidence:

[Note: Images 'managed' by blogger are 'shrunk' to fit; this may degrade the images somewhat, so that doesn't always suit. I will provide 'picture credits' links ([pcl]); one may <r-click> and select 'Open in New Window' OR <r-click> and type the letter 'n' to open the links in new IE instances.]

1. What may well have sparked the e-CO2_c**4 thesis:

[pcl]

Upward, ever upward, the wild CO2 held its sway... so far.

2. A bit of history, with a prompt:

[pcl]

Reaching (reducing back to) 350 ppm is not a matter of choice but a necessity.

Q: Where does 3 degrees Celsius warming = 550 ppm come from?

A: Perhaps here:

  «Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature ΔTs change arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:

» Delta T_s =~ lambda~Delta F

where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing (External Link). A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.» 
[Radiative forcing ...the facts - no more, and no less]

Comment: Note that there is some discussion of setting +2°C as a limit; the 350 website asserts that to do the best possible (under the circumstances), we must back-track to <=350.

3. Similar to (2), with an addition:

[pcl,3=4]

CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years, emphasis on recent past dramatic increase - well into 'uncharted territory.'

4. The culprits:

[pcl,4=3]

Global fossil carbon emissions 1800 - 2004

5. Current trend:

[pcl]

Return to sanity required.