Your Climate Debate Library Pro and Con - Lets Have a Real Debate - Trust but Verify
Segment # 058
There is an interesting pattern when comparing the suppression of facts by big Pharma and Climate Studies. Its about who controls the research money. And if you agree that man is responsible for the climate your studies get funded and you as a compliant scientist gain prestige and money. This precisely the way funding is controlled by Pharma. You play the game and you win. For the millions of people who are hurt or killed they don’t matter a whit. Look at the Netherlands and Sri Lanka and you will see the end point of any climate extremists. With Russia, India, China, Indonesia and others spewing pollution unabated until 2035 into the atmosphere, is it logical at all to assume that cutting back the standard of living in the US will have any impact on pollution. Of course not but we continue to elect people that d not have our best interests as a priority. Now that we have a 739 billion green energy bill passed and signed, you probably need some data to draw your own conclusions about whether this is a good or bad idea.
Why Dutch farmers are protesting over emissions cuts
Farmers made their way to the Dutch parliament in the Hague in their tractors as part of their protests
Hay bales in flames, manure dumped on highways, blockades at supermarket distribution centres and demonstrations on politicians' doorsteps.
Dutch farmers have been generating global headlines with protests described by Prime Minister Mark Rutte as "wilfully endangering others, damaging our infrastructure and threatening people who help with the clean-up".
This proud farming nation is under immense pressure to make radical changes to cut harmful emissions, and some farmers fear their livelihoods will be obliterated.
"It's in our blood, I want to do this, and if we have to adapt to new situations, I want to, but we have to be fair, it takes time - give me a chance," says Geertjan Kloosterboer, a third-generation dairy farmer.
We are standing in his recently built barn, surrounded by red and white cows, as his eldest son sweeps past us on a small digger.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62335287
Farmer Protests in the Netherlands Show Just How Messy the Climate Transition Will Be
A pile of manure, tires and hay bales on fire on the A50 highway in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, during a farmers' demonstration against the government's nitrogen policy on July 27, 2022.
Astandoff between Dutch farmers and their government is causing havoc in the Netherlands this summer. Protesters have withheld deliveries from grocery stores, smeared manure outside the home of the agriculture minister, and blocked highways with hay bales and tires. “That’s what you get when you make people so very angry,” Sieta van Keimpema, secretary of the Farmers Defense Force (FDF), said July 27 as the group launched a fresh round of demonstrations.
What’s driving the dispute? Manure. The Netherlands’ intensive livestock farming system produces an unusual excess of animal feces. When mixed with urine, those feces give off ammonia and nitrous oxide. The former is a pollutant that can leak into air and water, harming local wildlife. The latter is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in our atmosphere: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says nitrous oxide accounts for around 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
In June, the Netherlands unveiled a world-leading target to halve emissions of the gasses, as well as other nitrogen compounds that come from fertilizers, by 2030, to tackle their environmental and climate impacts. The government said it was leading an “unavoidable transition” for agriculture. Farmers can reduce the release of nitrogen compounds by changing how they manage their cows: feeding them less protein, or using water to dilute manure, for example. But the target is expected to require a 30% reduction in overall livestock numbers, and experts say many farms will have to shut down. Farmers are demanding that the government rethink the plan before it becomes law later this year.
Trienke Elshof, a dairy farmer with 250 cows in the northern province of Friesland, says farmers feel blindsided: for decades, governments have encouraged them to increase yields. Meanwhile, other high-polluting industries, such as aviation, construction, and transport, have yet to face such severe environmental rules. “We know we have to do something about nitrogen, but not in this top-down way, and not at this speed,” she says. “It feels like they want to get rid of all the farmers in the Netherlands.”
The farmers’ plight is stirring a thorny debate on climate action, with implications well beyond the Netherlands. A wave of solidarity protests have taken place in recent weeks, from Germany to Canada. Some have been organized by people who view the measures as an attack on workers’ rights and small businesses. But far-right figures and conspiracy theorists have also gotten involved. Twitter is filled with posts linking the Netherlands’ nitrogen policy to the Great Reset—a theory that claims international elites are trying to use the COVID-19 pandemic to establish an authoritarian global government. On July 7, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson featured a guest wrongly claiming the policy is designed to clear land for use by migrants. And at a July 23 rally former U.S. President Donald Trump praised the farmers for fighting their governments’ “climate tyranny.”
This may be just the beginning of much wider global unrest over agriculture. Scientists say dealing with climate change will require not just gradual reform, but a rapid, wholesale transformation of the global food system. As one of the world’s most densely farmed nations, the Netherlands is one of the first countries to grapple with how that upheaval will impact farmers—and how messy the transition will be. It won’t be the last.
How the Netherlands got here
The Netherlands is famous for its highly productive agriculture industry. In the years following the Second World War, during which the country suffered a famine due to Nazi blockades, Dutch farmers led a drive to increase the amount of food that could be grown on their relatively small territory. That meant rolling out greenhouses, vertical farming, and other efficiency-improving technologies, and also cramming in 238 cows per square mile as of 2021, compared to around 100 in the U.K., and 81 in Germany. By value, it’s the world’s fourth largest dairy exporter and second largest overall food exporter, after the U.S. The Dutch earn more from agriculture than Brazil—a country whose territory is 205 times larger.
But all that has come at a cost. Dutch cows produce so much manure that farmers struggle to dispose of it safely. As a result, ammonia pollution is affecting air quality in some areas. And agriculture accounts for 86% of the country’s nitrous oxide emissions, which drive up the country’s contribution to global warming. Meanwhile, intensive fertilizer use has led to toxic algae blooms in the country’s waterways that kill fish and make lakes dangerous to swim in.
Farmers demonstrate with their cows outside the House of Representatives building, as MPs are debating the cabinet's nitrogen plans during a farmers' protest against the cabinet's proposed nitrogen policy in the Hague, on June 28, 2022
In 2018, after a lawsuit brought by an environmental NGO, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Netherlands’ policy to tackle its outsize nitrogen pollution problem was too weak and violated E.U. law. When a new coalition government formed in June this year, they unveiled plans to dramatically accelerate pollution reduction. Nationally, nitrogen pollution must be cut by 50% by 2030, with regions near protected nature reserves expected to cut pollution by 70%.
Farming’s global environment problem
The Netherlands’ pursuit of farming efficiency is an extreme version of agricultural expansion that has taken place across the rest of the world over the last century. The environmental consequences are not limited to nitrogen pollution. Worldwide, the amount of land used for crops and livestock doubled over the course of the 20th century, requiring the clearing of forests that once sheltered biodiversity and helped keep our climate stable by sequestering carbon. An increase in the global population of methane-belching cows, now over a billion-strong, has doubled atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas since 1900. Farming is also responsible for 70% of the fresh water we consume each year.
Environmentalists say we need to reduce the toll farming takes on nature, by eating less meat and growing crops in less harmful ways, while at the same time make our food systems more resilient to the heat, drought, storms, and flooding that will be intensified by climate change.
The Netherlands’ bold agricultural policy, which tackles multiple environmental problems at once and comes with a $25 billion fund to help provinces and farmers transition, is a promising step, according to Natasja Oerlemans, head of the food team at WWF Netherlands. “This is the first time the government has been willing to take ambitious, comprehensive measures,” she says. “And because [of the budget], it can allow farmers to take a new direction.”
What’s making farmers so angry?
But for Dutch farmers, that new direction feels unclear: the government announced the target without specifying how the $25 billion will be distributed, or how provinces will decide who gets to keep their cows, or if there will be involuntary buyouts. The uncertainty has helped fuel anger.
Elshof says she doesn’t know what will happen to her farm if the target becomes law. She might be able to sell off 30 cows, but much more than that would make her business untenable. If other farmers in her region sell their farms, Elsof and her husband, both in their 50s, might be able to keep their cows, she says. Otherwise, they may be forced into early retirement. Their son, currently studying at an agricultural high school, is rethinking his life-long plan to become a farmer.
The government sent a mediator to meet with farmers’ organizations on July 26, in a bid to convince them that the target is workable. But unions said they didn’t consider the mediator—a member of Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s party—independent. They warned they won’t meet with him until the government promises “serious discussions” on the target and its timeline, suggesting the dispute is likely to continue.
The Netherlands’ farmers protests are probably the largest uprising over environmental regulation of agriculture that the world has seen in the climate action era. But similar tensions have been bubbling elsewhere. Farmers in Spain, Ireland, and New Zealand have all staged demonstrations in their capitals to challenge green reforms in the last few years. Populists in the U.S. and Europe, including France’s Marine Le Pen, are seizing on the protests to cast climate action as a conflict between rural heartlands, working people, and urban elites.
Elshof, who marched in a June protest but hasn’t joined the more disruptive efforts, says governments and climate advocates hoping to enact environmental reforms need to communicate better and offer more support if they want farmers to make a rapid change. “The world now wants us to see ourselves as keepers of the environment and nature—and that’s so new,” she says. Overhauling a food system on which we all rely “is the responsibility of the whole community, not just farmers,” she adds. “We cannot do this alone.”
https://time.com/6201951/dutch-farmers-protests-climate-action/
Sri Lanka faces ‘man-made’ food crisis as farmers stop planting
Once self-sufficient nation reels from fall-out of ill-conceived shift to organic agriculture, compounded by fuel shortages.
Mahinda Samarawickrema says his banana crop may fail because of a lack of chemical fertilisers [Zaheena Rasheed/ Al Jazeera]
By Zaheena Rasheed and Rathindra Kuruwita
Published On 18 May 202218 May 2022
Walsapugala, Sri Lanka – Mahinda Samarawickrema, 49, will not be planting paddy this season.
After a government ban on chemical fertilisers cut his rice yield in half during the March harvest, the farmer, who owns eight hectares (20 acres) of paddy and banana, said he no longer has the income to maintain a farm. Especially as his banana crop also looks set to fail.
Keep reading:
Sri Lanka mulls privatizing national airline amid crisis
Crisis-hit Sri Lanka down to its last day of petrol, warns new PM
What’s happening in Sri Lanka? | Start Here
The ‘new’ PM will not be a panacea to Sri Lanka’s problems
“It’s a total loss,” the father of five said in mid-April, standing in a field of stunted banana trees in Sri Lanka’s southern Hambantota district. “When I look at this, I know I cannot get the usual yield.”
By this time of the year, most of Samarawickrema’s trees should be twice their height and in bloom, but only a few of the 1,300 trees in the weed-strewn fields have any flowers. The famer says he used to get up to 37,000kg (81,571 pounds) of bananas a year, but this time, he expects only 6,000kg (13,228 pounds).
“Everything has collapsed,” he said. “I don’t know what to do, but to look up at the sky, look down at the ground and just wait.”
Most smallholder farmers in Samarawickrema’s Walsapugala village also say they will not be irrigating their fields in the current growing season, which runs from May to August and is known as the Yala season. They say the fertiliser ban induced crop failures, coming amid nationwide fuel shortages, make farming untenable.
“There’s no point in farming any more,” said KA Sumanadasa, who grows brinjals (aubergine) on a his quarter of a hectare (0.6-acre) field. Taking out a bag of puny vegetables, many streaked with fungus, the 70-year-old says the switch to organic agriculture has brought down his yield from 400kg (882 pounds) per season to 50kg (110 pounds).
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD
1,213,123 views Aug 19, 2018 The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times." According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it's claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a 'little ice age'. According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it's infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming. "Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers." Main contributors to the video: 1. Professor Tim Ball - Dept. of Climatology - University of Winnepeg, Canada 2. Professor Nir Shaviv - Institute of Physics - University of Jerusalem, Israel 3. Professor Ian Clark - Dept. of Earth Sciences - University of Ottawa, Canada 4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK 5. Professor John Christy - Dept. of Atmospheric Science - University of Alabama, Huntsville - Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal - Exceptional Scientific Achievement) 6. Professor Philip Stott - Dept of Biogeography - University of London, UK 7. Al Gore - Former Presidental Candidate 8. Margaret Thatcher - Global-Warming Promoter 9. Professor Paul Reiter - IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France 10. Professor Richard Lindzen - IPCC & M.I.T. 11. Patrick Moore - Co-Founder - Greenpeace 12. Dr. Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader - NASA 13. Professor Patrick Michaels - Department of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia, US 14. Nigel Calder - Former Editor - New Scientist 15. James Shikwati - Economist & Author 16. Lord Lawson of Blaby - Secretary of Energy - UK Parliament Investigator, UK 17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Director, International Arctic Research Centre 18. Professor Fredrick Singer - Former Director, US National Weather Service 19. Professor Carl Wunsch - Dept. of Oceanography - M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK 20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Centre 21. Dr. Roy Spencer - NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader 22. Paul Driessen - Author: Green Power, Black Death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
Its Just Common Sense but the Media is not Telling you the Truth
No question the earth is warming but should we destroy our energy sector and our standard of living while the world continues to use carbon based energy.
China is not required to implement climate change restrictions until 2035.
Biden has vowed to destroy our carbon based energy sources and he is doing it.
The self imposed dependance on renewable sources of energy creates a security problem by turning over requirements to China who produces the bulk of solar panels.
Solar generation was 3% of U.S. electricity in 2020, but we project it will be 20% by 2050 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50357)
The cost to shift to renewable based energy and to eliminate carbon based sources is not consistent with the maintenance of current living standards in the US. Over 84% of our current world energy production comes from fossil fuels.
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=1c55b64b66a1)
Obliterating our carbon based energy system without a reliable cost effective renewable system will seriously restrict the US economy while China not only controls our energy system but economically expands with unlimited fossil fuel energy.
Economically Biden’s plan will destroy the US economy and the prospect of maintaining a standard of living for those earning less than $100,000 a year.
The shift to renewables has barely begun and already rolling blackouts and brown outs are occurring across the country. Is it logical to assume that by removing reliable energy sources, the grid will improve?
Megyn Kelly is joined by Alex Epstein, author of "Fossil Future," to speak about the future of energy, the politics of fossil fuels, the truth about how little fossil fuels billions of people use in the world, and more.
“A very important and superbly argued book” (Matt Ridley) by the bestselling “skeptical environmentalist” argues that panic over climate change is causing more harm than good
Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Arctic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.
Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it’s not the apocalyptic threat that we’ve been told it is. Projections of Earth’s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.
A new epilogue details climate lessons from a year of global economic shutdown due to COVID-19, and from our increasingly costly but often very ineffective climate policies. False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong. It points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.
Argument for Climate Change
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.
READ MORE
“The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).
ADDITIONAL CITATIONS
"Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 048002, pp 1–7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (2016).
"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," P. Doran et al., EOS, Vol. 90, Issue 3, Pages 22–23, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002 (2009).
"Expert credibility in climate change," W. Anderegg et al., PNAS, Vol. 107 no. 27, 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 (2010).
"Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members," N. Stenhouse et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 95 No. 7, pp 1029–1040, doi: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (2014).
"Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming," B. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (16), pp 8963–8971, doi: 10.1021/es501998e (2014).
"The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 094025, pp 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 (2015).
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA
1,229,540 views Nov 11, 2014 Steven F. Hayward, Pepperdine University This lecture is part of Hillsdale College's 2014 CCA series. To learn more about Hillsdale College and the CCA programs, visit
Steven F. Hayward is fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and an advisor to BPC’s Campus Free Expression Project. He is also a visiting lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
Hayward was previously the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy and was the inaugural visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2013–14. From 2002 to 2012, he was the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute and has been senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute since 1991.
He writes frequently for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post and other publications. He is the author of six books, including The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964–1980.
Hayward earned a B.S. from Lewis & Clark College and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate School.
Steven Hayward
Resident Scholar, UC Berkeley
Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, and a visiting lecturer at Berkeley Law. He was previously the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy, and was the inaugural visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2013-14. From 2002 to 2012 he was the F.K Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, and has been senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco since 1991. He writes frequently for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, National Review, the Washington Examiner, the Claremont Review of Books, and other publications. The author of six books including a two-volume chronicle of Reagan and his times entitled The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964-1980, and The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution, 1980-1989, and the Almanac of Environmental Trends. His most recent book is Patriotism is Not Enough: Harry Jaffa, Walter Berns, and the Arguments That Redefined American Conservatism. He writes daily on Powerlineblog.com, one of the nation's most read political websites.
What is Behind the 97% Agreement in Climate Science?
Any denial of current accepted climate change theory is met with 97% of all climate scientists agree that green house gases are the cause of global warming. I could never understand how 97% of any humans could completely agree on anything. Where did this come from? Does it make sense? Regardless of whether the topic is vaccines, cancer research, or global warning the science should never be settled and the ongoing debates should be robust and unhindered by suppression of counter arguments. Today when arguments consist of anti-vaxer, racist, climate denier etc. is pretty difficult to believe without reservation the loudest voice.
IOP PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the
scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6,
B ̈arbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and
Andrew Skuce2,9
1 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia
2 Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
3 School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
4 Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA
5 Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA
6 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
7 Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
8 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA
9 Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada
E-mail: j.cook3@uq.edu.au
Received 18 January 2013
Accepted for publication 22 April 2013
Published 15 May 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Keywords: scientific consensus, anthropogenic global warming, peer-review, global climate change,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
S Online supplementary data available from stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia
In Cook et al. (2013), we broadened the focus beyond definitions that quantify the human contribution, because there's a consensus gap on the mere question of whether humans are causing global warming. Nevertheless, we used the 2007 IPCC position as one of our consensus position definitions:
"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global [climate change], published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
I immediately had any questions on how arbitrary this study appeared with the authors clearly biased to find the outcome they were looking for to justify man made global warming. I wanted to find an alternate argument beyond what we previously noted in yourtruthmaynotbemine.
https://yourtruthmaynotbemine.com/blog/you-buy-your-solar-panels-yet
This Dutch scientist makes some excellent points that nobody seems to want to discuss. The video is worth listening to.
97% of Scientists Don’t Agree About Humans’ Role in ‘Climate Change’: Truth Behind the Stats | Facts Matter
