Bill Nye will be pissed.

Just wait until Trump watches the movie "The Arrival"

LOL

One aspect of CC is real: CO2 emissions have lead to a massive global greening of the earth equivalent twice the size of the USA (NASA study). A new green continent has appeared on the earth thanks to man-made CO2 emissions.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

This doesn't disprove global warming though..

Well, there are evidence that support man-made climate change (keep in mind that until lately, the talk have been warming, not change, so at least something has made change in opinion) and some that does not support it and some that disproves it. Majority of the scientists, however, are in support of climate change. 

ALL the evidence does not need to be disproved, just enough to have the majority of scientists to think it's not happening - and then it's not happening.

Socioeconomy plays a large part in emissions. Even if you spend more in countries with high welfare, everything is produced with less emissions. When economy grows, there's money to spend to invest in clean energy, while the lack of cheap energy is holding back growth. It is better to produce energy with a more pollutive energy source to have cheap energy and faster growing economy that can invest in cleaner energy sources. Worst thing you can do is public funded subventions to expensive "clean" source of energy that, not only, is holding economy back (because of higher taxing/less money to spend on public services), the energy used as extra source when the need is the highest, causes emissions.

Ot's somewhat easy in Norway because of virtually all energy you need, and then some, can be produced by water power, whereas most of the world isn't so lucky.

Governor Jerry Brown of California: “If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite, we’re going to collect that data.”

It doesn't, you're right about that, but it's pointing out a feedback that's fighting the climate change.

My view on this is simple. Until we have two habitable planets to live on, maybe we should err on the side of caution?

Or does that make too much fucking sense?

Because it seems me there are two outcomes here

1.) If global warming scientists are wrong ... we'll have developed a bunch of efficient non-fossil fuel technology. Oil and coal corporations will suffer a bit, but still make huge profits.

2.) If global warming deniers are wrong ... humanity is in trouble and hundreds of millions of people will displaced and many more may die, Northern Europe, coastal US/Canada, Japan, etc. are in big trouble. 

You are right, I didn't mean literally all. Should've written a substantial enough amount that it suggests we are wrong.

Norway will soon enough be connected to the European power grid, so whatever excess electricity we produce will be exported to other countries. I don't care too much about individual countries though, it's the net global effect that matters, and in that regard, Norwegian hydroelectricity won't influence it much. We do export a substantial amount of oil and gas though....

Anyway, my post wasn't really related to how we should solve the problem. It was more related to how there most likely is a problem in the first place.

PS: For all those peop saying he is technically right because nobody knows 100% for sure, the same is true for all science, but we don't just throw it out the window because if it. We will throw it out the window though if it is disproven or replaced by another model with superior predictive capabilities (say, Einstein's theory of general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. Though Newtonian physics are still utilized a lot because, while it isn't completely accurate, for most uses, the difference is so tiny that it is negligible).

I don't believe that. Do u have any evidence?