"" Yet the computer models that scientists rely on to predict the future climate don’t even come close to acknowledging the power of plants to move water on tha

"" Yet the computer models that scientists rely on to predict the future climate don’t even come close to acknowledging the power of plants to move water on that scale, Swann said. “They’re tiny, but together they are mighty.” "" This statement causes alarm bells to ring inside my head. The calamitous warnings that we hear are based on predictions that are based on climate models that are claimed to be nigh on rock solid. The advice that we are given is based on theories about how the climate works that are meant to be highly accurate. The numbers we have are based on measurements that statistically are highly accurate and methodologically very sound. The impression we are given is that the models and theories and numbers and measurements are mostly a done deal bar a little tweaking here and there. What we are doing now is just refining the models and acquiring more data and plotting ever more accurate graphs. If it is true that at least one major factor has not been taken into account that truth to my mind does a lot to damage the credibility of those making the predictions and peddling advice. And if there is one major factor, why could there not be another major factor? I have long wanted to know why – if climate change be such a serious concern – we don't try to reduce desertification on a global scale, in addition to tackling our over-reliance on hydrocarbons. But no, it's all "coal is bad, diesel is bad, oil is bad, natural gas is bad, you name it is bad", but where are all the state-sponsored projects to green the Sahara and the Arabian peninsula? Immigration from North Africa and the Middle East is causing political unrest in Europe. If the land was better over there they wouldn't need as badly to come over here. It feels to me that even though climate scientists claim to be rational actors they are being motivated by guilt rather than reason. I know it is heresy at this point to question climate science but for me the science has never been anything remotely as clear cut and settled as CFCs and the Ozone layer. For a while there about a decade go we collectively were way more concerned about the rain forests and the rate at which they were being cut down. Can we not at least agree that two things need to happen: (1) we need to reduce our dependency on hydrocarbons (2) we need to plant trees. I think we also need to acknowledge that "green technologies" (there's a loaded term is ever there was one) are anything but – producing solar panels and wind turbines at a massive scale is not all upside and no downside. The processes that make up green tech are not magically immune from having a harmful effect on the planet. Ultimately what I think we should be doing is building nuclear power stations and planting billions, if not trillions, of trees. Everything else is window dressing.