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, 23 May 2011
Back to work here soon
My reflection on this blog's value so far, is that the main beneficiary has been me - it has been a lively way to get back into climate politics and science. From the comments on the last post, and also from a few emails prompted by it, I know that at least some people have found value in exactly the ways I hope for this blog:
# help them protect their own children from the worst of the Climate Alarm Industry's excesses, by getting some early warning of them
# keeping an eye on policies and curricula in this area (and I hope the blog will also help those actively campaigning for reform or removal of some of them)
# as a source of useful information, and reference
I think the topic of climate-alarm-based propaganda in schools, which may be increasingly disguised by talk of 'sustainability' - the AGW foundation being treated as a given - is too important to walk away from. This blog does not have a large readership, but it does appear quite prominently in some Google or other searches on relevant topics and so I always have hope of some happy happenstance encounter by someone who can make good use of the content here.
Thank you to all those who commented, or emailed me. Your remarks are very encouraging, and I will be carrying on with the blog.