I’ve looked at “Climate Science” ad nauseum and it is not at all convincing: their computer models prove nothing except that the real world does not obey their predictions. Point out one single falsehood in my statement, if you can. If you cannot consider the possibility that you might be experiencing cognitive dissonance, having been indoctrinated into a view that you accept without understanding. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts and your good self is blind to obvious facts?
Global warming, if it exists at all, is no justification for the draconian proposals that have been recommended for its remediation. CO2 is clearly not a pollutant, it is good for the environment. Farmers force CO2 concentrations of 1000 ppm in their tunnel-houses to optimise the growth of plants: this is about the concentration that existed in nature 20 million years ago. I am not suggesting that we have the ability to increase the atmospheric concentration to 1000 ppm from the present 400ppm: we don’t. I am pointing out that if we did reach that concentration life on Earth would thrive. It is thriving now at only 400ppm: in pre-industrial times plants were suffering from Carbon starvation.