I don't think I need any corrections from someone who spells as badly as you do. No doubt your theories on climate change are equally accurate.
Of course, not. We have nine years of Conservative inaction to catch up for.
What a compelling argument... So sciencey, it can't be wrong
I think many people faced with this climate change subject do not trust or employ thier own capacities to reason well enough to sift the wheat from the straw. In this case of anthropocentric caused global warming. The overload of accompaning text compells them to attend to the academicly entrenched experts who they must trust to deliver real evidence backed up by hard facts when in fact there are subjects many academics will not contest for fear of loosing thier jobs. This is the case with AGW as it is also with the gender nonsence.
I will add one final and unbelievable reality for many about the ultimate design of the AGW programe, starting with the infamous Club of Rome meeting fifty some odd years ago when I first heard of the dire pending catastrophy of global human over population and the many UN meetings since that time driving that fear into the population. I have absolutly no hesitation in saying that population reduction is the ultimate goal of the AGW programe and to that end the worlds evil elite have warned us at 180 degrees from the truth and they will have thier population reduction and because of that realization they will rule this planet without the interference of the common people who they loath and fear. Crop losses already obtain globally, floods earthquakes and snow and ice cyclons and inundations of coastal lands by the seas and war without end are to follow in this regularly schedualed little, we hope, ice age.
Reduced solar irradiation= reduced global magnetic field=increased hard cosmic rays=greater cloud cover=increased albedo= less life giving light=mass starvation and war=the much desired population reduction. Bill Gates can retire from poisoning African women.
I forgot to mention the pending pole shift
One of the items you struck upon does possess an element of consistency with the AGW narrative.... population.
Assuming that an individual (a hypothetical individual) is supportive of the AGW theory, the most efficient and certainly the most direct solution is related to population, read: the actual number of GHG emitting organisms that exists in the equation.
The more organisms in that equation, the greater the impact on the Earth, climate, etc.
The above, basic logic should be totally calculable yet in all of the time that this discussion (I don't use the word debate because there is only a group that sermonizes) it has never, not even once, been advertised by the primary bodies that decry AGW as something real.
From a politically correct standpoint, i can see why it is shied away from, but these folks have ill advisedly forwarded a solution set that an inconceivably vast sum of money must be transferred from wealthy nations to developing nations in order to help them develop societies and therefore combat global warming or climate change or whatever else their marketing professionals deem is the next catch phrase du jour.
All the while, this transfer of capital is advertised as resulting in helping some nations support larger populations more safely and efficiently
... And that is the crux of the matter, the old bait-and-switch routine accompanied with so much volume and flapping of arms
