A warm suggestion. The globe has been in a long term warming trend since the low temperature point of the most recent ice age. Technically, we are still in an interglacial period of that ice age so long as there is year-round ice at the poles. The ice sheet on Antarctica is increasing. Measurements from satellites show a statistically significant albeit slight global warming trend, less than 1 degree, although the number of years of satellite data is very small for this purpose.
However, the temperature “hockey stick” increase does not exist in the real world, though it was very widely proclaimed and forecasted as dangerous by global warming alarmists. Further, we do not have a good correlation of the trend of atmospheric CO2 versus the trend of global temperature. In fact, those two trends are diverging. That divergence is very strong, exculpatory evidence that temperature is not being forced by CO2, which was the hypothesis of the global warming/climate alarmists. We all know that correlation does not prove cause.
We can clearly see the mistake in the attribution of cause by the divergence between the predicted temperature in all climate models when compared to observed temperatures.
We can clearly see the mistake in the attribution of cause in the scientific literature by the continuing decline in estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 .
But alarmists proposed that CO2 was the cause, the trigger, which was said by them to be forcing global warming. If CO2 were the cause, then there must be a strong correlation. But there is nothing of significance. If CO2 were forcing significant or dangerous warming, then temperature trend and CO2 trend must be converging or at least parallel, not diverging. The data clearly show that the climate is not sensitive to CO2 concentration.
In fact, CO2 concentration is about as low as it has ever been in geological history. There are sound arguments that higher CO2 would be better.
Since the beginning, the alarmist CO2 hypothesis was a “plug” in their climate models, a hypothetical cause which was presumed, not measured, by eliminating or miscategorizing other climate variables. The primary example of that is the consensus definition of water vapor and clouds as a “feedback”, rather than as the known dominant greenhouse gas. Instead, if water vapor and clouds are defined as greenhouse gas in climate models, then the error in the measurement of temperature change due to water vapor and clouds is larger than the greenhouse warming effect caused by man-made CO2. First, the greenhouse effect (or radiative forcing) of water vapor and clouds is 10 times larger than the effect of CO2. Second, it should be obvious, measuring the greenhouse warming effect of water vapor and clouds in the natural environment is difficult due to their very high natural variability.
By miscategorizing water vapor and clouds as feedback instead of the dominant greenhouse gas, then, CO2 is at the top of the list of greenhouse gases, instead of CO2 being trivial, statistically insignificant, less than noise in the measurement of water vapor and clouds. Then it would be too obvious to the public that CO2 is not dangerous pollution, and there would be no rationale to eliminate fossil fuels, no rationale for taxpayers and NGOs to fund billions of dollars of “greenhouse gas” projects and research, no money flowing into crony pockets for “sustainable” solar and wind projects, no money into political campaign coffers. It’s an expensive fraud of global proportions. Eventually, some lawyers will be enriched by triple damages awarded by juries.