Thoughts on climate change?

OMG!  You dismiss something in Heritage because they opposed tax increases on vaping?  Really?  Are you really that much of an extremist?  Please tell me you posted this without reading it first.  I'll think much more of you if that is the case. 

The information about how much the climate will abate in the anticipated increases in global temperature by 2100 is based on a tool from the UN (You can even Google it and use a version of it yourself).  This is the same source of data that the Kyoto protocol is based on.  You think this is whack science?  What does that say for the UN and the Kyoto Protocol then?

The guy who made the calculations for the article has testified before Congress on climate change over half a dozen times that I am aware of.  Do you think quacks testify multiple times before congress on expert climate predictions and are asked by Democrats and Republicans alike to offer data and solutions?  There seems to be this huge disconnect where you claim you want to be science based, but you seem to reject out of hand any science you don't like or where the information came from.  

Solar is the cheapest form of energy. 5.9 trillion in fossil fuel subsides in 2020 drive down the price artificially.

You get that solar is highly subsidized right?  The US needs four petawatt hours annually, meaning 13,600,000 acres/ 21,250 square miles or panels (Nussey, 2018).  That would be for 100 percent solar, but that would not include updates to the grid nor account for the influx of EV cars, and it assumes these 21,250 square miles are in direct or mostly direct sun all day long.  If you think I'm wrong, go look it up for yourself.  I think you have vastly underestimated the costs of solar and the logistical problems, and I haven't even touched on the problem about storing solar energy yet. 

You are also omitting that carbon is a pollutant that future generations will have to deal with that should have a cost of $100 a ton.

A cost to whom and how?  What is your source?  

Your last sentence is an extreme opinion with no facts as backup.

Since 0  CO2 emissions on the entire planet would only reduce the anticipated increase by about .2 degree Celsius by 2100, any single individual's actions and behavioal impact the climate by incredibly small and imperceptible amounts.   But the type of imposed actions you suggest will indeed affect poor people significantly. Now I don't claim to be as good at math as you, but if energy and transportation costs and anything that needs energy and transportation, increases, as it it predicted to do, and eats up 20% of the lowest quintile's take home pay, I'm guessing they will have 20% less money to spend on, well, anything.   

I am not saying I understand every detail. But, it has been going around on websites that are mostly trustworthy that solar is the cheapest form of energy.

More and more it has become clear you are an ideological extremist. I remember you brought up a large list of how liberals are anti-science. One of which was that human life begins at conception. I have given up all hope of changing your mind.

 I need a break from all this debunking. Clearly, you can gish gallop faster than I can debunk. There is no way to keep up without exhausting myself.