Climate Change – Leave Anthropogenic To The Spelling Bee.
I don’t understand why the rhetoric. It’s Science 101. Starts with photosynthesis. No CO2, no vegetation, no O2. Then pollutants. CO2 is inert. Not a pollutant. Again ask plants and your soda. So take CO2 out of the argument, unless you want to die healthy.
Then Green House Gases. Water vapor is 1,000 more trapping than CO2, and 5,000 more than Methane. But the IPCC does not model water vapor. Actually no one does, for one reason. No one can influence the rain.
So what are we left with? Pollutants. Not enough to move the climate needle. The last little ice age started in the 13th century. There were no pollutants before, when Eric the Red settled in Greenland – ever thought why it’s called Greenland? And stopped in the mid-19th, when the world was not industrialized yet. If you don’t believe me, check some interviews of Reed Bryson, the “father of modern climatology,” https://youtu.be/rzYfJP-HWcQ.
But there are enough pollutants to want to fix that, for sure. So why aren’t we? And why are we diverting to Climate Change? Simple here too. Fixing pollution requires targeting specific industries. Costly. Talking Climate Change requires spreading the cost over the world’s population – and of course, the US first. More politically palatable in a Globalist concept. Except that President Trump knows how to count, and he is not exactly a Globalist.