the operative word in your comment is fail. i couldn't say it any better if you don't see a problem. CO2 is not the problem. not even a little. if you are actually interested in the information, leave me a comment. i'm glad to help.
i try not to use belief where it does not apply. i THINK that, the greenhouse effect that i learned in 6th grade was simplistic and incomplete. in the intervening decades i have learned a great deal about the system in which we live and the "greenhouse effect" is not a significant factor in any larger scale understanding of an altering climate. i once believed in human caused global warming. then i decided that i should educate myself further. the best advice i can give is, try to prove yourself wrong. no one else can do it. i can point you in the direction but, i cannot convince you. here is the merest beginning. this is in no way complete. this will provide a starting point for further research.
if you are interested in more than a summary, just ask. the summary of what i've learned in the last 5-15 years runs longer than the above 36 minute video. i have spent more than 3000 hours on this in the last 5 years alone. the majority effect appears to be due to solar activity, but to simply say that is to omit the amazingly interwoven complex of effects and feedback systems including solar cycles, how the sun interacts with the planets, through radiance, the solar wind, electrically and electromagnetically, including scalar magnetic coupling and flaring. also involved are the galactic wind, and the cosmic ray activity from outside this cozy little bubble in which we live. every bit of this and many times more, contradicts what the IPCC scientists say. their models never did work, except to produce the desired results that would allow us to be taxed and deindustrialized. most scientists, do not contradict the knowledge that CO2 is not the issue here. the 97% consensus is another part of the propaganda sales job for the carbon tax.
science does not work by consensus or we would still be living in a geocentric universe, but if consensus is what you are looking for, most scientists :
the operative word in your comment is fail. i couldn't say it any better if you don't see a problem. CO2 is not the problem. not even a little. if you are actually interested in the information, leave me a comment. i'm glad to help.
"CO2 is not the problem"
So you don't believe in the green house effect?
i try not to use belief where it does not apply. i THINK that, the greenhouse effect that i learned in 6th grade was simplistic and incomplete. in the intervening decades i have learned a great deal about the system in which we live and the "greenhouse effect" is not a significant factor in any larger scale understanding of an altering climate. i once believed in human caused global warming. then i decided that i should educate myself further. the best advice i can give is, try to prove yourself wrong. no one else can do it. i can point you in the direction but, i cannot convince you. here is the merest beginning. this is in no way complete. this will provide a starting point for further research.
Can you summarize what you have learned in your research that contradicts with most scientists' opinions?
if you are interested in more than a summary, just ask. the summary of what i've learned in the last 5-15 years runs longer than the above 36 minute video. i have spent more than 3000 hours on this in the last 5 years alone. the majority effect appears to be due to solar activity, but to simply say that is to omit the amazingly interwoven complex of effects and feedback systems including solar cycles, how the sun interacts with the planets, through radiance, the solar wind, electrically and electromagnetically, including scalar magnetic coupling and flaring. also involved are the galactic wind, and the cosmic ray activity from outside this cozy little bubble in which we live. every bit of this and many times more, contradicts what the IPCC scientists say. their models never did work, except to produce the desired results that would allow us to be taxed and deindustrialized. most scientists, do not contradict the knowledge that CO2 is not the issue here. the 97% consensus is another part of the propaganda sales job for the carbon tax.
science does not work by consensus or we would still be living in a geocentric universe, but if consensus is what you are looking for, most scientists :