On September 5, 2019 at 20:53, djy said...
The reality should be 100% because no climate scientist worth his salt would ever say there isn't an anthropogenic component to the present warming. The disagreement arises in its size and that of the overall effect of CO2 when compared to natural variability.
No one is claiming there aren't environmental issues to be resolved, but replacing one with another is hardly progress.
1) if everyone agrees it is not 100% geogenic then does it matter really matter if it is 5% man made or 95% man made (don't get me wrong if it is 5% it means we have a harder job to do but isn't it still better to minimise that 5% or what ever % you feel is right?)
2) also the issue of anthropogenic and geogenic is that the two are not necessarily distinguishable for example the permafrost has a lot of global warming gases trapped in it but because it is frozen they are trapped. Now because of global warming more of more of the permafrost is not permafrost any more and the thaw means those gases are released to exacerbate the problem. Would it be fair to categorize it as natural if it was not an issue for the centuries it remained frozen?
3) it is not just CO
2 it takes center stage because in essence it is the easiest to work with and it affects health and literally kills people.
