I like your contrarianism re: war and rare earth propaganda but believe you are missing the climate propaganda. The opposition is growing to the climate scare. There are IMO much better explanations of the climate and that there is no problem with manmade CO2, coming from various professors of physics than from the groupthink bureaucrats and panic merchants of the IPCC and its army of NGO activists. You could look up professors William Happer (Emeritus, Princeton), Richard Lindzen (Emeritus, MIT), Ivar Giaever and John Clauser (Nobel prize Physicists), Steve Koonin (Under Sec of Science for Obama) and countless others like Willie Soon.
Much of the success of the scare by activists was in the claim that 97% of scientists agree that manmade CO2 emissions will heat the globe. Which was turned into 97% of them believe it will create a disaster. The claim by the professors above is that yes there is a positive effect on temps but it is a miniscule, non lasting effect. There is much else explaining the success of the scare: from hockey stick temp chart fabrications, to the urban heat island effect on old temperature stations originally located in the outskirts of cities that in recent decades have become part of the cities as they expand outward thus unfairly pushing up temperatures, the actual correlation of temps with CO2 emissions in the last 100yrs (a non statistical conclusion based on random noise when you consider how short this period is in relation to other historical data of thousands of yrs - which actually shows reverse causation ie: temp changes cause CO2 changes with a lag of 800y (as the ocean degasses/ regasses CO2)).
I like your contrarianism re: war and rare earth propaganda but believe you are missing the climate propaganda. The opposition is growing to the climate scare. There are IMO much better explanations of the climate and that there is no problem with manmade CO2, coming from various professors of physics than from the groupthink bureaucrats and panic merchants of the IPCC and its army of NGO activists. You could look up professors William Happer (Emeritus, Princeton), Richard Lindzen (Emeritus, MIT), Ivar Giaever and John Clauser (Nobel prize Physicists), Steve Koonin (Under Sec of Science for Obama) and countless others like Willie Soon.
Much of the success of the scare by activists was in the claim that 97% of scientists agree that manmade CO2 emissions will heat the globe. Which was turned into 97% of them believe it will create a disaster. The claim by the professors above is that yes there is a positive effect on temps but it is a miniscule, non lasting effect. There is much else explaining the success of the scare: from hockey stick temp chart fabrications, to the urban heat island effect on old temperature stations originally located in the outskirts of cities that in recent decades have become part of the cities as they expand outward thus unfairly pushing up temperatures, the actual correlation of temps with CO2 emissions in the last 100yrs (a non statistical conclusion based on random noise when you consider how short this period is in relation to other historical data of thousands of yrs - which actually shows reverse causation ie: temp changes cause CO2 changes with a lag of 800y (as the ocean degasses/ regasses CO2)).