Why is some really important scientific (proven) research, that speak against Global Warming, get pushed and ignored? I feel like everywhere I look there is Global Warming propaganda. Here are ь really, heart stopping, yet quite short, paper: https://www.summitdaily.com/news/global-warming-is-propaganda/
Volcanoes are responsible for less than 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. http://bit.ly/bc-volcanoes
Here is a quote form my first link: “The Earth cleaned that up nicely all by itself, thank you.” So I don’t think how many % are still in our atmosphere is the right way to look at this. And may I ask why, when I search for “global warming propaganda” in Google Scholar everything I get is the exact opposite? I don’t think Google is being objective here. And by the way, we should perhaps look at the big picture. Sure the CO2 levels can be rising, but what makes you think this isn’t natural? They aren’t even that high, compared to the levels our planet had in most of it’s life. https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/co2_levels_in_earth_history-2/ Here is something, that is in my opinion objective and explores both, your and my side. I highly recommend you take a look at it. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288871622_Climate_Change_Science_Propaganda
I recommend three things about finding reliable information: 1, Use sources that document their own sources clearly. The chart you provided is part of an online course at Georgia Tech. It provides a url as a source, but that’s insufficient documentation, as the url says nothing about who created the chart and in what context. 2, use charts that have a scale adapted to describing the problem under study. The scale of the chart you provided goes back 600 million years. Humans have been alive for about the last tenth of a millimeter, the last 2 million years of a 20 million year span in which atmospheric carbon has *not* exceeded 400ppm, and all of recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years. Here’s a chart with both a more useful scale and a clear provenance: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide. 3. Be just as cautious about articles that support your perspective as you would be of articles that challenge it. What’s the nature of the journal? Who wrote it? What are their qualifications and what else have they written? The journal itself (https://www.scirp.org/journal/journalarticles.aspx?journalid=209) is open access, and lists an H-5 index (a measure of the number of cited articles) of 13, which is relatively low. (Compare: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en) The author bio on the article page (https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=62334) is “Retired patent attorney and chemical engineer.” I have nothing against patent attorneys or chemical engineers, but I would tend to limit my reading of their work to patent law and chemical engineering. Another article he’s written is about political polling, and is published in the Open Journal of Political Science, another subject outside his fields of study.
The main point was, that humans are not responsible. That is the reason of the charts going back so many years. Also, are you aware of any big-scale propaganda? If yes, would you mind finding similarities between the Global Warming campaign and it? I know several
I’m going to reiterate my advice to be mindful of sources of information, with emphasis on being as critical of information that reinforces your convictions as you are of information that challenges them.