Man, Asimov takes me back to my Sci-Fi binge reading days as a teenager. I Robot and the Robot detective stories, Foundation, Second Foundation, and then the other authors contributing prequels. Such good days binge reading!

Yes, I don't understand it when scientists & authors & personalities like Asimov could see what was going on but the alt-right-tards can't get it through their thick skulls that CO2 traps heat, that every National Academy of Science on the planet has agreed climate change is a thing, and that we can see the effects before our very eyes. The summers are longer and hotter, the ice is withdrawing, the ecosystems are changing, bugs and insects are hatching earlier, Canadian winters are so warm they don't kill off the pine beetle, leaving the pines exposed to decimation by pests, all of it indicating an out-of-kilter climate tipsy topsy hurly burly out-of-whack.

Yet these 'armchair warriors' just want to get naked and rub themselves in peanut butter in preparation for their next echo-chamber session in here. It's positively CREEPY! I had to take a week off just to wash some denier nastiness out of my system! They have The Dumb, and I could feel it spreading.... I didn't want to waste all my time arguing with The Dumb.

Yes Asimov was good with science FICTION, & clever plots for his stories, but really!

Are the warmists so bereft of any scientific argument they have to go to the fiction shelves for their story.

Hasbeen,

I think you have lost the plot. I think you need to stay off the Bundies & Coke for awhile.

Was that really you I saw in the movie 'Real Action Hero' last night? My God you look a lot like Arnold Schwarzenegger! Idea! Why don't you two get together and make a movie called 'Twins'.

Gosh, tempers have risen, and much argumentum ad hominem as well.

To reply: I am not selling anything, and certainly not snake oil. I write to communicate with an audience. Steele Redux and Alan B. are entitled to their opinions. I don't normally respond to them, because they are fixed in their views and offer me nothing new.

I have seen a few bushfires in my nearly 83 years. I would not live close to a eucalyptus forest, let alone inside one. Just madness in the long run.

Dear Max Green,

I hear you however this is nothing new and Asimov was motivated to give up his fiction for a period to concentrate on non-fiction in order to try and raise the level of scientific literacy in his country.

"Asimov recalled in 1969 that "the United States went into a kind of tizzy, and so did I. I was overcome by the ardent desire to write popular science for an America that might be in great danger through its neglect of science, and a number of publishers got an equally ardent desire to publish popular science for the same reason"."

All you are doing is reacting to the scientific ignorance that would allow someone to completely discount the impact of CO2 on global temperatures.

Perfectly understandable.

Max, I'm not sure if you were actually paying attention to some of the points that you have raised.
Your reading of the laboratory experiment with the cylinder, the match and the CO2 proved nothing of value beyond a primary school playing with fire. You would've noticed that with a nominal CO2 concentration of 0.04%, there was no claim of anything. When the concentration of CO2 was raised to an unknown level (very probably tens of times greater than ambient), absorption of visible light was demonstrated. That is not an experiment that proves anything.
You came into this discussion and added little but vitriol and abuse.
Many of those commenting on here have demonstrated quite deep knowledge and understanding of science and how it works in meteorology and the climate.
The enthusiasm for aerial fire bombing is very strong, but the actual effectiveness is not living up to the promise. The stated practice of the large machines is not to put the fires out, but to "suppress and contain". In which case that don't have any objective measure of success or failure. To lumbar any level of Government with an example of very heavy metal would not be very cost effective. Also, there is no such thing as a "new" DC10. The last one was pushed out of the shed over 30 years ago.
The moment you link to articles (stories) in "The Conversation" and "The Guardian", it is obvious that you are not interested in objective assessments and discussions on the effects that human activities may be having on global climate. At least not from ethical and honest scientists.
The Conversation refuses to accept any comments that may question any of the "warmists" beliefs on AGW/CC. You may not cast doubt on the claims of "Records" of any kind.
To do so in the Guardian brings down an extremely vitriolic rain of abuse from their resident fanatics.
The initiating conversation piece by Mr Don Aitkin makes no claims or statements that are untrue, he raises points that bear objective consideration.