Rob there is not necessarily any correlation between pollution, which is a severe problem, and man made climate change, which is questionable. If smog was a climate driver then we should expect to see aberrations in the local weather around cities like Los Angeles and Beijing. I've never heard of any and you can guarantee that if there were you would have heard about it because it would be irrefutable proof that smog does drive climate. It's also come to light recently that actual measured climate data has been replaced with calculated data. It's been done here in Canada and by NASA and NOAA in the states. The only reason to change the facts is because the facts don't fit your agenda. Then there is the hype about rising sea levels and if Greenland's ice sheet melts it will cause a rise in sea levels of 20 feet. I was very suspicious when I read that so I looked up the area of Greenland and compared it to the area of the world's oceans. If all of Greenland's ice sheet melted it would result in a rise of inches, not feet. And it's not melting. It may be melting near coastal areas but that could be a result of warmer ocean temperatures instead of climate. We know that currents cause changes in surface temperatures and that has nothing to do with man made climate change (el nino and nina e.g.). The snow pack in central Greenland has been building for a while. So too in Antarctica. The warmest decade since 1850 was the 1930s as Harry's article points out. We've been cooling since then. If you remember back to the 70s the scare was that we were headed into a new ice age (we are in fact overdue by about 2000 years I believe). I just got got back from Grande Prairie, Alberta where I work seasonally in the fertilizer industry. It was a bust this fall again for the second fall in 3 years. Summer temperatures were so low that crops didn't mature in time and coupled with continuous rainfalls it has prevented most farmers from getting their canola crops off the fields. The same was true about the weather here in BC. We only had about one week this summer with temperatures in the 30C range. Quite unusual for the sunny Okanagan.
If you want to see graphs using the original recorded data this is the best video I've seen about it and I think everyone needs to watch it. I hope that one underlying theme this gentlemen presents strikes everyone who watches it. It's how to recognize when you are being lied to and manipulated. If you notice all the various graphs that are being presented by governments have different starting points. Some start in the 60s, some the 80s, some the 90s, etc. WHY? Why not start them all at say 1900 or 1850. For everything but satellite data we have records that go back that far. And of course the answer is that if they go back that far the graphs won't show the intended results. We saw our Trudeau government do the same thing with their gun control agenda. They started their graph in 2013. Only going back 5 years should seem odd to anyone so why then? The answer is that 2013 was the lowest year in recorded history for gun violence so anything after that would be an increase.
Here is the video to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=8455KEDitpU
Here is another video of the same person, Tony Heller, speaking to a Washington State Senate climate change panel in 2017. Skip to about the 9 minute mark and you'll get to her him describe his credentials and they are quite impressive. At around 14 minutes you'll hear about how the original data has been altered. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...-presentation/