Make no mistake, I believe that air quality can have a significant impact on health and quality of life. The smog that hovers over major cities is disgusting. I hate that I cannot see the hills around me when I know they’re there. Seeing glimpses of the smog in Beijing during the olympics was terrible.
Population health. Should that be the primary driver to force environmental change?
The reason climate change, and mainly, the effects that humans have on climate change has come to mind is because of this recent Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-09/climate-change-just-got-a-little-less-terrible
In a nutshell, when 97% of scientists agree that global warming is bad and needs to be avoided at all costs, the models they are (often) agreeing to are the worst-case scenarios. And what this article exposes is that the media touts the worst-case scenarios of these scientific papers to hype an alarming message, but the models used to forecast the worst-case scenarios are very, very, very unlikely! (Dare I say, impossible)
For example, in the worst-case scenario of the paper highlighted in the article, the amount of coal burning assumed is that there’s probably not enough extractable coal to make the scenario possible.
Again, let me state for the record: I want clean air!
Other factors that give me pause in the whole global warming debate is that there are a few folks that I follow whose opinions do weigh heavily with me. Most notably, these are Martin Armstrong and Scott Adams.
I encourage you to peruse through these links:
Martin Armstrong actually points to evidence (research by NASA) that suggests we’re actually entering into a Global COOLING cycle.
Scott Adams provides an interesting perspective on when to trust “the experts”.
Last, but not least, there are multiple points in my life where I’ve met university professors and they were adamant about global warming being a hoax.
Everyone has an agenda. I just want clean air.