Haim, your use of the word "pollute" is interesting. CO2 is not a pollutant. Lead, particulates, mercury, carbon monoxide, cfcs, hydrocarbons, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, vanadium, and other gunk are pollutants.
Yes, people have polluted our habitats and I have been well aware of that and suffered the consequences from childhood. I resent greatly being polluted.
But the fact that people do something doesn't ipso facto make it a pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant at all. CO2 is not just natural, it's an essential ingredient for life and the foundation of the chlorophyll crowd which provide our food. At some level, CO2 concentrations would be undesirable, but there is no reason to think that 380 ppm or 400 ppm are undesirable. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons to think it's better than 280ppm.
Believers in climate catastrophe seem unable to come up with any reason or facts to show that CO2 at 400ppm or 450ppm will be a problem rather than a solution.
The make outrageous claims about climate catastrophe but are unable to substantiate them and their infamous models bear little relationship to actual climate as it happens.
In science, when the predictions don't match the facts, it is not the facts which are wrong, it's the theory which led to the predictions.
It's a bit early to think that a shortage of sunspots and a solar minimum for decades is a good thing. If we end up in reglaciation as seems likely in 2020, then some more solar activity would have been good.
Self-dealing climatologists enjoying a huge gravy train do NOT want to see the cash flow interrupted. They need to keep shroud waving to keep the looting going. It's money, not science.
Mqurice |
