> With the focus on anthropomorphic sources, it ignores other natural processes or discounts them completely. The natural processes are fully accounted for.

> With the focus on anthropomorphic sources, it ignores other natural processes or discounts them completely. The natural processes are fully accounted for. They are a tiny blip compared to manmade sources. Again: historical CO2 rises like this took thousands or even millions of years, whereas the one we're witnessing right now has taken maybe two hundred at most. The difference is from the manmade contributions. If you disagree, then you can present the sources you believe to be major contributors at your leisure. > Having watched this "campaign"unfold for nearly 60 years, and watching it morph every time the predictions proved wrong Revising hypotheses and theories with new information is literally the point of science. > Follow the money. Indeed. The fossil fuel industry peddling coal and oil has thrown around plenty of money to convince you that they're blameless. The meat industry torching the Amazon for farmland has thrown around plenty of money to convince you that they're blameless. Follow the money.