Forests and carbon capture

[Rajvik]

Matrix, the science has been argued back and forth to no end and both sides of the argument are effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I'm not listening to you."  

I mean, I appreciate you admitting straight up that you have no intention of engaging in good faith. It's certainly refreshing.

Well met mister Kettle, my name is Pot.

source 
For starters, the warming rate is gradual and fairly constant, not rapid and accelerating, as it’s often claimed.

The U.N.-approved models used to project climate change impacts overshoot the observed warming by up to five times as much as has actually occurred in the tropical troposphere—a region where greenhouse theory expects the most rapid warming to occur.

As i said, the science is debatable and both sides have reached the points where they are doing this. I am willing to listen, however plain observation tells us that it is a steaming pile of horse dung. I remember some of the earlier "Global warming flood maps" that showed that by 2020 Florida would be under water. Now it's 2019 and i'm not dealing with the gulf washing at my front door so call me a bit skeptical of the whole global warming claim. Add to that, when all of a sudden we had that "freak" massive snow storm across the northern US and Canada, (you remember that Rob, wasn't it 2008 or there abouts) all of a sudden it went from being "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because people could point to one of the coldest winters on record and say "Where's your Global warming now?"

Now, if you read further on my quoted source you'll find this little gem

Perils of Climate Policy 

Climate campaigners hype the risks of global warming and belittle, ignore, or deny the benefits of fossil fuels. Would their so-called climate solutions—carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, fracking bans—make us safer or the reverse?

Pick almost any climate policy on the books, and you will find an abysmal benefit-cost ratio. For example, the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan would avert less than two-hundredths of a degree Celsius of global warming by 2100. That’s according to the EPA’s climate simulator, a model aptly named MAGICC. Yet achieving that miniscule result would cost tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance burdens and economic fallout.

The stock rejoinder is that if the whole world implements such policies, we can take big bites out of global warming. Perhaps, but then the problem is that any truly ambitious global program of fossil-fuel suppression is potentially a humanitarian disaster.

For example, according to the IPCC’s overheated climate models, the Paris Agreement’s central goal, which is to keep global warming below 2°C, will require reducing global carbon dioxide emissions 40-70 percent below 2010 levels by 2050. There is no known way to do that without compelling developing countries to make substantial reductions in their current consumption of fossil fuels.

in short Climate Change correction policies are an attempt at a back door to SOCIALISM, and that, like the Green New Deal is a big NO THANKS in my book.