Not sure what this is, but without human induced CO2 the general consensus is that we should be cooling right now.
Bottom Line - At this time global warming evolved to be a political issue and not a scientific one -- very similar to COVID. And no -- 97% of "climate scientists" do not support that global warming is a dangerous issue because some clown created a survey to make this claim (while carefully crafting who they identified as "climate scientists"). Surveys don't drive science -- proper non-biased research does. Global Warming promoters only need to demonstrate two things to me and I will align with their perspective: Raw unaltered temperature data since 1886 till today which shows a rise in global temperatures. In all the raw data sets the 1930s were warmer than today. Climate change promoters invented the concept of a "altered" temperature data set to "hide the decline" Provide a rational explanation for the Medieval Warm Period - the tree ring data, historical summaries (including most of coastal France flooding, and evidence (Vikings growing crops in Greenland and warm grapes growing in the U.K.) all demonstrate the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than the temperatures today. Explain why this clear evidence is not correct. Sadly I actually support many of the policies pushed by global warming advocates such as reducing fossil fuels and moving to renewable energy -- but for totally different reasons. For example why support an oil industry where we import oil from countries such as Venezuela which are our enemies. Similarly producing oil/gas is a very messy and polluting business domestically. On the coal front - I live in an area surrounded by coal fired power plants; CO2 is not the problem, hard particle pollution is the proven problem. In my opinion the "climate change" crowd is using the exact wrong approach to drive their agenda -- if they focused on real proven pollution issues that are obvious (e.g dead fish from oil), economy improvements related to moving to green energy which would provide many jobs, and the national interest perspective of not being beholden to our enemies -- then they would make far better progress than whining about "global warming". By the way - solar energy just passed the mark recently as being the cheapest electricity source. It's Official: Solar Is the Cheapest Electricity in History https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/official-solar-cheapest-electricity-history-130000511.html The International Energy Agency (IEA) says the cost per megawatt to build solar plants is below fossil fuels worldwide for the first time. Public success stories like Elon Musk's solar and wind battery farm in Australia have helped move public sentiment. All four IEA scenarios include a mix of renewables as well as nuclear and the world's remaining fossil fuel plants. (More at above url)
It's never going to happen, because we as a species consume more energy than all the world's renewables could ever provide, for the infinite future. If we run out of oil or BAN it's use, we're screwed.
I believe the transition away from oil will be over a lengthy period of time - decades. Economics will drive the change in the electricity market first -- with the assumption that government tax / grant policy will also be involved. The creation of renewable electricity will rise over time including the more people owning electric cars and an increasing number of people with rooftop solar. This will also drive the evolution of a micro-grid electrical distribution structure -- which the incumbent electric companies with large expensive plants will fight tooth & nail. I don't expect oil to go away quickly in powering military equipment, large ships, airplanes, and many other oil-powered engines in our economy -- the shift in electricity going green will need to happen first. This will also be coupled with the reality that medium sized gas generation plants for electricity are now much more cost effective than older coal plants, nuclear plants, and large petro plants. Even in the "non-green" arena of electrical generation the market is shifting towards the "most green" alternative from a CO2 perspective (ignoring nuclear).
It's an economic issue more than a political issue (at least in every modern developed country that isn't the United States). Those were polls from scientists which prove nothing, but show consensus. I already conceded that the planet was cooling before it started warming in recent decades. The thing is, it would still be cooling without manmade interference. CO2 emissions have completely reversed that. We have a major problem, because we are ill prepared to deal with the consequences of such a fast paced climate change. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/climate-change-reversing-cooling-trend/ We are setting our climate up to go back millions of years in history in a very short period. Cities are going to be under water. The continuing cost of doing nothing is going to be astronomical.
"...All of the planets in our solar system are warming up", so ...CO2? https://www.researchgate.net/post/A...global_warming_such_a_big_issue_here_on_Earth Is the above claim re solar system even true? If so, that would shed a different light on the situation, no?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...avy-snow-hitting-eastern-colorado/ar-BB1fHtIP Denver Weather: Heavy Snow Hitting Eastern Colorado