| "the causes are natural and we can’t do much about it" This statement ignores hundreds of thousands of years of verifiable trend data, that showed C02 levels steadily declining until people began burning fossil fuels (mined coal) early in the industrial age. Global energy retention through greenhouse effects is only a slight change, and we are not going to see Venus like conditions. Additionally, the radioactive isotopes of carbon are verifiable anywhere. The fossil fuel industry is provably the father of the CO2 issue. Notably, there is a theoretical oil burn-rate limit the planet could handle sustainably, but greed and desperation drives people to consume around 3 to 12 planets worth of resources. The key rate of burn was important at one time, and some policies did include reduced oil consumption as part of draft policy. You may also find recent tree core CO2 data too, that provides a living history of the man-made changes in our atmosphere. That also matches the other data sources within the margin of error. "The politicians are trying to defend against 1 or 2 Celsius degrees of change" That is actually not much a of a safety margin, as at around >3.4'C we should begin to see cascade environmental collapse. Where it gets so much worse than algal blooms, storms, and floods/fires. "The Earth naturally experiences warmer and colder times." Except the perturbations in 11 year solar cycles and ten thousand year ice ages don't really change the trend data very much over long time scales. Only WWII caused a brief dip in CO2 concentration uptick with oil use. Oil is important for countless reasons (medicine/plastics/chemistry), but it is irresponsible and wasteful to burn it in excess. It is foolish to manufacture imaginary controversy, as zero credible scientists have ever looked at the data and concluded it was nonsense. Please don't cite YT as a data source, as it is for entertainment purposes only. Have a glorious day =3 "Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ |