I'm sorry but any 'study' that says the sun does not affect the temperature of the earth is fiction. It is, in fact, the SOURCE of heat for earth. How can anyone with half a brain state that the sun's fluctuations have no affect on the earth's temperature? I don't have to have a PhD in climate science to use just a bit of common sense to know that's unadulterated BS. The earth's path around the sun is not a perfect ellipse - would these same scientists state that being a bit closer or further from the sun would also not have any effect on the earth's temperature? You can quote all the 'scientific research' you'd like but common sense refutes much of what is 'settled science' - an oxymoron if ever there was one. What did 'settled science' tell us about the COVID vaccine, reactions among young/healthy individuals, efficacy of the vaccine, etc.?
I am not denying that the earth may, in fact, be warming. I struggle to trust that we have the technology to accurately assess whether it is and to what extent as the earth is a damn big ecosystem. However, to disregard the SUN and blame 'global warming' on man is where I throw up my resistance. It is a political issue more than an science issue. And, singling out CO2 as a huge culprit is, as I stated above, asinine. Let's take CO2 levels to zero and see what happens to life on earth. So, there is some level of CO2 that is necessary. Is it .04%? How would one go about determining that? If mankind somehow reduced CO2 levels to .03% - what would the outcome be? A rebirth of Garden of Eden? Or worldwide famines with millions/billions of humans starving to death? If CO2 levels were .05% - how would that change the ecosystem? Would the changes be positive or negative for human life? I don't believe we have the ability to model situations like that with any expectation of accuracy. And, to restate, I am 100% in favor of preserving and enhancing the environment. Spending trillions of dollars unnecessarily to put the world's economies into a New Stone Age is species suicide, imo.
Academic research has, for years, been accused of reaching conclusions that the funder of said research is looking for. If Big Oil funds a climate study, does anyone believe the researchers are going to conclude anything other than fossil fuels do not affect the climate? And the converse is also true. If Big Pharma did a study on COVID vaccines, I'm guessing I can tell you what the conclusion will be before the first egghead begins to gather data. There is a whole industry dedicated to 'climate change' and 'alternative energy' - why? Because there is potentially trillions of dollars to be made in the transition. If all these eco-terrorists were serious about CO2 and the environment, why aren't they championing nuclear power generation and hydrogen combustion engines, etc.? Because it's NOT about the environment. It's about $$$$$. How many eco-catastrophes have been dreamed up in my lifetime? About 25 and counting. 'Global warming' is just one more in a long line. There will be others - trust me.
