OK, let's deal with my belief.
I see carbonate beds of epochal scale all around me. In Utah geologists have measured in some places total bed thicknesses of 18,000 feet in places, with perhaps an average of 5,000 feet statewide, including Colorado plateau region. Almost every geological epoch is represented by some carbonate here except about the last fifty million years. For much of Utah's geological history, the area was continental shelf space. One epochal shoreline was forty miles east of me, one was ten miles west. At one time there was a "Sevier Orogenic Uplift" which raised a hundred mile square area to Everest heights, the source of the Colorado Plateau sediments. So how much carbon dioxide does the worldwide carbonate rock represent, if it were still in our atmosphere as it once was???
Geological facts prove to me that Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide has been decreasing for hundreds of millions of years, since the dawn of Cambrian time. Scientists have documented this repeatedly with vast amounts of research results. Our ice ages have occurred relatively recently while atmospheric carbon dioxide was in the range of todays levels to maybe five times as much. So if we politically decided to cure the carbon dioxide deficiency, we could perhaps estimate the cost of dissolving all the carbonate rock, and the cost of replacing the annual loses to more carbonate deposition under warm shallow seas. . . . I'd be calling politicians and scientists who advocated doing that nutjobs and whackos, especially if it was a globalist scheme for transferring vast powers to governments worldwide at taxpayert expense, and at the cost of denying reasonable people the privilege of doing as they think best. . . .
My belief that our carbon dioxide atmosphere is too low has actually more scientific evidence than the belief that it is too high. Mine is the best science, the best intelligence, and most honorable position for a rational human being to take.
Your belief that an anthropogenic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a catastrophe that justifies transferring to government the power to regulate human activity on a global and intensively invasive scale is not science at all. It is politics.
The politics has hijacked what "science" we once had, and "science" has been transformed from an objective process of study and determining truth into a merely political propaganda operation.
I don't need to dispute a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide from .03 to 0.04 %, or the relation of that to perhaps a rise of 1.5 F in mean global temps over a few decades to scientifically debunk the current crop of bought-and-paid for political hacks who call themselves scientists and join in the chorus that these results justify global action that will transfer wealth to a privileged few at the common expense of the general quality of life of billions of human beings. The transfer of power to government and the loss of liberty and reasonable choices for personal actions is the objective of this scam..
The fact that you go along with it blindly believing what a crop of hacks are telling you, however it relates to the research results does not change the fact that it is no longer "science" when politics and impassioned advocacy for vast increases in government power becomes the objective of the debate. You are not a scientist at all, you do not properly understand what "evidence" is, or "fact" is, or "science" is, because you insist of driving the pure science over the political cliff to non-objective interpretations and purposes.
you and a whole generation of scientists financially-dependent on the political teats of elitist governance, who have lost sight of what it means to be objective, independent, and reasonable persons of ordinary integrity.
you tag the transient rise in temps and atmospheric carbon dioxide as "bad". That's not science. That's politics.
