Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?
Monday, 4 October 2010
Terrorise the children, control the adults: - a behavioural change strategy at work
By those who want to reduce the levels of a trace gas vital for plantlife.
Why? Superficially, because they believe that computer models designed to show a big effect of CO2 actually mean that CO2 has a big effect.
But deep down, it seems more likely that they just hate humanity. Weird, or what?
One day, teachers will refuse to teach the junk 'science' of CO2 alarmism, and the junk geography, sociology, and politics that drive it. They will react with anger when 'sensitise the children', and 'behavioural change', and 'sustainable biodiversity', and 'carbon footprint', and all the other apparatus of indoctrination is pushed at them to push in their classes.