It's obvious that humans are having a wide variety of impacts on the environment, but I'm not seeing compelling evidence (and definitely not "incontrovertible evidence") that we are causing the planet to hurtle toward the sort of catastrophic destination that we are being told. Based in the info I've been able to find, it seems more likely that this issue is being used as a political tool to collect huge taxes and exert massive control on a global scale. I'm very interested in the counter-argument that shows me why this is not the case.
I'd like to present a concise argument about why the alarmist position is not justified, and should not be respected as "established science". So here goes. . . . I take as my information base the Wike link :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
I quote the following without dispute:
the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 ppm during warmer interglacials
I note that interglacial warms are relatively short epochs compared to the glacial epochs, a recurring pattern, which is demonstrated on another link,
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/moana.htm, to say an average 10Kyr warm/90Kyr cold for total 100K periodicity. temps are estimated to drop to 8 or 9 C colder extreme than the present warm extreme, and the switch from warm to cold and from cold to warm appears to be pretty steep generally. Within the present warm, over the past 10Kyr, our temps have actually declined about 1.5 C. See the link, folks. Now back to Wiki. . . .
Today's contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth by the four major gases are:[41][42]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%
The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[43] Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's temperature would be about −18 °C (-0.4 °F) .[44][45] The surface temperature would be 33 °C (57.6 °F) below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C (57.2 °F).[46]
Our current interglacial warm is not even the warmest we've had in these cycles, and since about 11000 years ago, we have actually cooled about 1.0 C notwithstanding all of our combustion.
I calculate from the above figures that a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 300 to 400 ppm should correlate theoretically with the empirical measurement of 0.8 C increase oh within the scope of 0.3C to 2.1C anyway, but look at the general relation of 200 ppm vs -8 C and 300ppm and 0.0 C through nine cycles. which is it. . . . cold periods following unexplained drops in CO2 and warm periods coming from combustion release of carbon dioxide,
or is it cold ocean/surface sequestration of CO2 and warm surface outgassing of CO2?
How can anyone control for that natural cycle, on that natural trend of carbon dioxide and temps, and claim anything significant is happening with our combustion?
The established science of 800,000 years of data vs. the political agenda of UN global fascism and some dependent scientists seeking available funding in reward for gilding the lily of climate change?