If the CO2 levels are currently rising without the aid from mankind then what do you attribute it to? From what I've read they've been able to explain pervious warmings with volcanic eruptions or positron to the sun but those don't apply currently.
I don't think I am being clear in trying to make my point. Let me try again. I am NOT trying to argue that mankind is not affecting current rise in CO2 levels. I AM arguing that there have always been very severe climate shifts in our planet's history, including extinction level events, and that there is no indication that ...even if we learn to stop adding to the problem with our over-population...mankind cannot stop it.
Our best strategy has ALWAYS been in learning how to "role with the punches" and not to try to spend literally trillions to stop something that inevitably will happen with or without our contribution. If you really want to spend that kind of money, spend it on the space program so our entire species isn't dependent on one planet's fortunes.
“I’ve been building models and watching others build models for 45 years,” he says. Climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life to or even your trillions of dollars to.” Younger scientists in particular lose sight of the difference between reality and simulation: “They have grown up with the models. They don’t have the kind of mathematical or physical intuition you get when you have to do things by pencil and paper.”
All this you can hear from climate modelers themselves, and from scientists nearer the “consensus” than Mr. Koonin is. Yet the caveats seem to fall away when plans to spend trillions of dollars are bruited.
From deeply examining the world’s energy system, he also became convinced that the real climate crisis was a crisis of political and scientific candor. He went to his boss and said, “John, the world isn’t going to be able to reduce emissions enough to make much difference.”
-Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department.
From the WSJ article on his upcoming book: "Any reader would benefit from its deft, lucid tour of climate science, the best I’ve seen. His rigorous parsing of the evidence will have you questioning the political class’s compulsion to manufacture certainty where certainty doesn’t exist. You will come to doubt the usefulness of centurylong forecasts claiming to know how 1% shifts in variables will affect a global climate that we don’t understand with anything resembling 1% precision."
It would appear that not all scientists believe we are at (or past) a tipping point...nor that we are even at a point where we should commit that kind of spending to a Green New Deal. Please don't ascribe to the religious zealotry of the environmental left.