‘Simple answer’

Why would University of London professor emeritus of biogeography Philip Scott rebut the notion that CO2 is a main climate driver? In many instances, he has proclaimed “The fundamental point has EVER been — climate change is governed by literally hundreds of factors or variables and the very idea that man can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins of a politically selected factor (CO2), is very much misguided.” May 2008.

Meanwhile, atmospheric scientist Robert L. Scotto, past member of the American Meteorological Society, who has authored numerous technical publications and reports, clearly states, “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and mighty nigh indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. CO2 may have a tiny effect on global temperature but the sun and ‘cloud water vapor’ have by far and away the greatest effect.”

Why would award-winning Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv critique the sham United Nations IPCC Report in 2013 for failing to recognize these and many other factors that have the greatest effect on the entire scope of climate? Of course even the most ignorant realizes promoters of “man-made climate change” will never admit this quantifiable effect.

The fact is, climate is the most complex coupled nonlinear chaotic system known to man. Of course there are human influences. No one denies this. But what outcome will result by fiddling with one variable CO2 at the margins?

A truly concerned individual would be apt to objectively seek and study evidence offered by countless credible scientists. Or perhaps I am naive in not crediting political affiliations enough.

Fact of the entire shebang is volcanoes, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, especially water vapors, ocean cycles, methane, clouds, plate tectonics, atmospheric dust and circulation, cosmic rays and many more factors can and do cause climate fluctuation.

In fact, water is a far more important greenhouse gas than others and it is at a far higher concentration in the air than carbon dioxide.

Space will not permit to mention hundreds of credited scientists who know better than so-called man-made climate change advocates.

Why have I and countless others taken interest? Perhaps we have learned a lie can travel around the world before the truth puts on its shoes. Meanwhile, the damage may well have been done!

In closing (for now): “A Harvard Consensus” — In 2017, Princeton professor emeritus of physics William Happer drew parallels to today’s man-made climate change claims when he said “I don’t see much difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the Salem witch trials, the judges were educated at Harvard and this was supposedly 100 percent science. The only two people who scoffed at the existence of witches were immediately hung! It would appear that not much has changed.”

For verification of this conclusion, stay tuned for future op-eds from the climate change promoters.

Charles Lawrence

St. Marys