Your a fool if you think constant industrial pollution has had no effect on our environment.
I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is, as living standards rise, so does pollution. Is it worth it? Is it worth it to curtail industrialization? What specifically are the effects? How do we change them?
Correlation is not causation.
There has always been a series of warming and cooling cycles for millions of years, but arguing that this kind of warming that we are seeing today is the same as those cycles is wildly inaccurate.
Actually, it is not wildly inaccurate. The earth has been hotter, with higher CO2 levels (CO2 lags temperature btw) prior to industrialization.
What Monckton and others like him oppose, is radical green agendas that call for de-industrialization and the institution of a scientific technocracy that is unelected, and controls the world's science and commerce.
Already the climate alarmists have triggered policy which has incentivized reducing food stores, in favor of producing inefficient biofuels, resulting in food riots and starvation around the world.
It's my belief that over time, we'll get greener and more efficient. That has been the trend so far. But to turn back the clock, and to reduce the standard of technology and the bounty of the free market will cost lives and cause unnecessary suffering, for a scientific premise which has never been clearly established.
The AGW premise is, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Literally.
These people are population reduction fanatics.
Folks should give Aldous Huxley's "A Brave New World" a read. He predicts exactly what these folks are all about.
