now that cuts both ways
To a certain degree - but the climate theocracy has actually painted themselves into a corner.
1. They've made wild assertions, using faulty (and worse, fudged) data (all of which is now fairly well known), to make doom and gloom predictions to gin up public sentiment.
2. They've proposed no real solutions beyond alternative fuels and a shadow economy by which we somehow "cap" emissions (from the West, mind you, not the developing world) and this will allow for those who "need" to produce emissions will pay for that right.
3. Even if we do everything they suggest, again, using their faulty/fudged science, we will only slightly mitigate the coming climate disaster they've predicted. And, by doing EVERYTHING, that means we sit around in the dark, walk/bicycle everywhere, freeze in the winter and burn up in the summer.
When presented with their arguments, I said to hell with them years ago. However, I am still open-minded enough to listen to anything - ANYTHING rational coming from the other side.
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. In all likelihood it is a trailing indicator of heat (warmer air can hold more gas, therefore, more CO2 is found in warmer gas), and the entire premise is flawed.
In any event, with steadily increasing emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution and clear, significant examples of what must be other inputs (Solar radiation cycles, massive, natural climate fluctuations THROUGHOUT the fossil record, just a whole host of things completely unrelated to human activity), I see no benefit to expending even 1/10th of the effort we have thus far done to a problem that exists only in the minds of "true" believers. I want clean air and water. I'm not willing to kill 5 billion people to get it. I'll take "clean enough" air and water.
This post was edited on 4/6 at 12:07 pm