Extraordinary climate alarmism requires extraordinary deception

Countries with the most pollution (MAP)

 

It’s a question of significances :-

  1. is the effect of an increase in CO2 significant, or not?

  2. is the human contribution to that increase significant, or not?

  3. are there other factors that are more significant.

The answer is basically that the human contribution is a small amount of the total amount. And that other factors have a far greater effect. The Sun and water are the elephants in the room.

The effect of the Sun is primarily determined by the Milankovitch Cycles and sunspot activity.

Water has a huge effect and is much more significant than CO2. A ball park figure is that H2O has 100 x the effect of CO2. Applying that to clouds that means that an increase or decrease in cloud cover of 0.25% has the same effect as an increase or decrease in CO2 of 25%. IE H2O is significant. CO2 is not.

Further if you spend $1.5T on reducing CO2 output by 100PPM and there is an increase of cloud cover of 0.25% you have just wasted $1.5T!!!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Posted in Science and tagged , .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.