You’re funny and have a massive ego.
You honestly believe that nobody could both understand what you wrote and disagree with it?
I’m guessing I’ve read more of that article than just about anyone except your alter ego. I think I have a very good handle on what you propose
The first two chapters are geo 101 stuff been there done that.
I read the meat of what you believe about climate change science and know enough to know you don’t know what you think you know. Nobody does, your certainty is evidence of your misunderstanding. It’s the engineer in you. All through grad school I taught engineers and geologists and you could pick out the engineers about 80% of the time. Sharp people, but really hate abstract unknowns and interpolation. Give them conjecture and arm waving and they will try hard to make it fact even thou it’s not.
Bottom line… nobody knows, me included.
I also read a substantial Portion of your last two chapters and found a lot of conjecture, which is fine and ideas that sound very much like you actually believe we should adjust our approach to energy and the environment because of global warming??Which all makes sense to me
I don’t know what you want… ? Someone to read your every word and then crow about how smart you are? Sorry I just don’t agree with much of what you said, and yes your politics that you inject into everything is a part of it.
How does politics fit into a supposedly factual description of modern climate science?
I tried at the end of my post to offer some subjects for discussion but you ignored all that. Which is fine.. you prefer the name calling and decisiveness of left vs right politics
So be it