I think one of the big problems was reclassifying CO2 as a pollutant, which the U.S. Gov's EPA did a couple of years ago. Yes there has been a slight rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is up to 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. However, I read last week that the increase has triggered an increase in the growth of plants and trees in the Northern Hemisphere. The lowest concentration at which plants (and thus humans) can exist is 0.015 percent--a third of the present level and we all die. .
The heating seems to have been concentrated in densely populated areas, particularly those with heavy pollution, lots of paved areas that collect solar heat. So, yes, man does affect the climate, but no one really has a solid take on how much or which way. That is all from predictins made from more than 30 different computer models.
I have not really seen any solid proposals that would actually reduce CO2 levels. The $10 Trillion proposal includes the admission that it will not reduce emissions worldwide at all. The only practical solutions so far have pretty much come from industry. For example, scrubbers on Diesel train engines, new jet engines that have cut emissions by something like 4 percent, perhaps more in recent years with more effective ignition of all fuel and high bypass engines that use the front row(s) of compressor blades as if they were propellers, forcing huge volumes of air to encapsule the engine exhaust, thus increasing total burn of the fuel, and so over powered that they run at about half power when cruising. New cars are incredibly fuel efficient, thus reducing total emissions per mile driven.
The source of the problem is in China, India, Indonesia, Russia and the emerging nations in Africa and other LDC areas. Who is going to tell them that they can't join the modern world, burn energy, have washing machines, cars, motorbikes, heated dwellings, AC in the hellish areas. You going to forbid them? Ready to fight to keep the 3 billion living in poverty starving and picking from dumps. I didn't think so.
What struck me last week was that some agency announced that at this point, the most effective control of CO2, is to plant more trees. Ma nature is already attending to that, so maybe the climate is self correcting--Let's hear three cheers for homeostasis.
If you really want to know why the scare tactics, just look at that $10 to $16 TRILLION being proposed to spend to accompolish nothing much. Doing things that haven't been invented yet, monitored by universities who get paid to produce completely inaccurate models which predictions are always wrong or set so far in the future that we can't audit them. Corporations are licking their chops, thinking about all the gadgets they'll be able to peddle the government to get their cut of the booty. And with the all the panic and rush, it won't matter if the predictions or the gadgets even work.
Climate denier is a meaningless insult meant to silence anyone who doesn't want to piss away all that money, pay excessive taxes, empower pseudo science, believe inaccurate or false information, or be sheep going along with the program. Not so many sheep here.
I'm for serious pollution control efforts wherever possible. Things like the catalytic converter, computer controlled combustion, highly efficient heat transfer tech work fine already. I think that real pollution reduction is important, but no one wants to scare people with that because we already know how to reduce it, so its commodity and the booty is not so tempting. My take on it.
The more I do, the less I accomplish.
Last edited by DesertRatTom; 10-30-2019 at 05:12 PM.