No, two things can be true at the same time. The Earth can be warming due to unnatural processes, and the left can be pressing a political agenda by blaming the other side.



You can say over and over that scientists have a consensus on the function of CO2 in climate change, it still doesn't make it true.

 

“Activists” probably (obviously incorrectly) assume that the aforementioned skeptics will make it past the first sentence and into the actual content of the article/site....

 

While skepticism is a healthy attribute, sometimes the evidence is overwhelming. Scientists also have concensus that the Earth is round... and yet Flat Earthers are a thing. What evidence would convince you to change your mind?

 

Before we have this debate, do you understand that the Earth increases in temperature before the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises?

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

Humans never self regulate very well, a crisis is required before they can make a change. Try promoting hydrocarbons as the precious and irreplaceable substance that it is. Once it's gone,, humanity is back in the Stone Age. But wait, that gonna cramp my style. For the benefit of someone that's not born? Yea right!

 

The rest of the article is even worse; a political rant. Some activists forget that charts and graphs mean nothing if no legislation is passed, and when it comes to persuasion, hyperbole is not your friend. Those of us who support reasonable clean-air initiatives recoil from such counterproductive language.

 

Government grants; notoriety or fame, depending your view and personal fortune. Al Gore became immensely wealthy by pushing “green energy” all the while blasting around causing a huge carbon footprint.

GF

 

From the website, "
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase."

That's impossible, and they don't even try to defend that statement with any science.

That website also fails to acknowledge the existence of F-gases, which I said earlier the left wing political machine was trying to cover up. That website is another failed attempt to link CC to the fossil fuel industry, and thus Republicans, for political purposes.

A great tell that a website is bogus is when it uses analogies to describe a position, instead of hard data. It simply means their data can't stand alone as proof, so they need to persuade you to believe their political position by other means. Science is math and data driven, not creative analogies.

Also, to your question of what would persuade me to change my mind, a multi-million dollar package for a government "green initiative".

 

From my family members in academia, there is some of this involved. A quite backwater niche suddenly thrust into the limelight... a gold rush of sorts.