We know from science publications that CO2 and methane emissions from oceans and land increase as the oceans and lands warm.  Warming causes increasing CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere.  Warming trends are positively correlated with increasing CO2 concentration trends with respect to time.  The CO2 trend follows the warming trend.   These two facts mean CO2 cannot be the cause of significant warming trends.  The effect (warming trend) cannot precede its cause (increasing CO2 concentration). Human-produced CO2 is not causing significant warming of the atmosphere or the oceans.

We know from doing the math that it is not possible for humans to generate enough energy to significantly warm the oceans or the land. (Except possibly via thermonuclear war.)  If humans devoted all available energy sources to directly heating the oceans, the math tells us that it would take many centuries to raise ocean temperature by 1 degree Celsius.  Regardless how much CO2 humans might add to the atmosphere, the math tells us that the atmosphere does not have enough heat capacity, mass and volume to significantly change the temperature of the oceans, which occupy more than 70% of earth’s surface.  Do the math.

We know that humans can change the weather and climate by making major changes in the uses of land and water, such as creating giant, paved cities where there was once a forest or a marshland, or cutting down major forests without replanting.  But these are not effects of human-produced CO2.

We know that CO2 is not pollution and not causing significant warming.  We know CO2 in the air is the only source for plants to obtain carbon, which is the fundamental building block of plants and all life.  CO2 is plant food.  More CO2 results is more plants, more food, and a healthier environment.

Therefore, there is no logic and no justification for suppressing use of fossil fuels under a presumed necessity to reduce CO2 produced by combustion of fossil fuels.  Also, there is no logic and no justification for redistribution of wealth, or carbon taxes, or global control of natural resources under that presumed necessity.

There is sound logic and good justification for conservation of nature and minimizing pollution.

There is sound logic, good justification and legal basis for prosecuting global warming alarmists for defrauding the public out of billions of dollars.  The triple damage awards gained from court cases against wealthy climate alarmists and their backers could be used for natural conservation projects and restoration of critical infrastructure, such as repair and rebuilding of clean-burning natural gas energy generators.  It is one thing to study climate science and have the freedom of speech to publish results, but it is a crime to falsely alarm the public in order to extract billions of dollars from taxpayers and donors.  Among other types of crime, this must be the largest case of mail fraud in history.

Today, some of these criminals are cooling the earth by creating clouds in the upper atmosphere.  They are using your tax money/tax debt to create a problem.  This is extremely dangerous.