97%!

Let's talk about the bandwagon effect. The 97% of scientists who (supposedly) have signed onto the Current Year consensus about global warming.

To show my hand: by instinct, I am a revisionist, but not a denier.

Let's start with the basic three factors: warming, cooling, and what prevents either. There are factors which warm the planet - otherwise, we'd all be at the universe's blackbody temperature, near zero Kelvin. Mere entropy - the stark differential between the warmed earth and deep space - will cool this place. Also to be considered are factors that prevent the cooling here, summed up under the "greenhouse effect"; and that prevent the warming, mainly albedo (=light-reflection).

The major part of direct global warming (and snowmelt) comes from our sun. Some direct warming is vulcanism; also, from heat generated by fires, natural or not, and by urban environments. For heat retention and reflection we can look at cloud cover or algae or soot.

Many factors are indeed anthropogenic - even carbon-based. I would indeed support measures to reduce (especially) dark soot, blanketing the northern snows and the bright deserts. We need means to reduce methane, sulfur hexafluoride, and such, also. I was fine with our earlier push against chlorofluorocarbons.

I object mainly to our focus on carbon dioxide. It is plantfood. Plants will consume it. I don't think lowering our carbon "foot print" will do much, nor that I care if it would.

More and more papers are publishing positive results. And more and more researchers are happy to promote when negative results are "flawed". There's that "3%" again, which implies that 97%, bogus on its face. Who's paying for it? On the other side, what might happen if the results which proved the "3%", "flawed", are turned on the work of - say - that litigious Michael Mann?

Do I trust the people who sell us electricity, or do I trust the people who want me enslaved "for my protection"?