I was scanning news items this morning, as I do after opening D&D and then the NYTimes, with coffee.
I saw this: Bill Gates has lots of money, a foundation, and an interest in climate change issues. This was one essay that seems to pinpoint causes of climate damage, and possible mitigation. I don’t necessarily endorse Bill and Melinda Gates, but I always endorse good ideas, no matter where they come from…
No need to ask for forgiveness for asking. I am curious too.
It would be important to know if he is a “scientist” at a say, an oil company where there could be significant conflicts of interest between the funder’s business interest and say, the actuality.
How do you suggest he should have rephrased what he said?
In what materials?
I agree that using propaganda, false, or harmful speech in support of “action against climate change” is harmful and would likely backfire.
But I’m not seeing definitive evidence to support your claim that the rise in CO2 levels was not due to human activity (“anthropogenic climate change”).
How can you definitively rule out that it wasn’t due to the effects of the industrial revolution?
(The Industrial Revolution, now also known as the First Industrial Revolution, was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the United States, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. Wikipedia)