The scientific argument though has got very muddied by what appears to be an underlying political agenda. Falsification of data to fit a narrative hasn’t helped the scientific cause.
Facts, the ability to check presuppositions, hold alternate views etc. has largely been demonised.
Whereas the argument is much more nuanced than that.
I mean let’s hypothetically suppose the lever any increase in co2 exerts is 1% of the effect of global warming. Are all the “green” initiatives proposed worth bankrupting countries or worse preventing the developing world developing?
If you had one dollar to spend improving the world would climate change action be in your top ten causes? Actually a danish study has just been completed on this very issue. And no. Co2 emissions were not in their top ten.
The irony of course is that few people are as “green” as me. 8KW of solar electric, 10Kw solar water, top insulation, electric /hybrid cars, own vegetables, hydroponic tech etc.
The world has become too binary in terms of how we argue or think imho.
|
