We now know that increasing global temperatures as evidenced by ice core data precedes increasing levels of carbon dioxide. The astute among us know that CO2 cannot be causing any of the warming that precedes it. However, the earlier ice core data didn't show that one happened before the other; the amount of time between them was too small to detect. During those "olden days" when we didn't have the science to measure such small amounts of time, the green racket was born. CO2, it was claimed, was the cause and warming was the effect. Modern technology shows this to be impossible.
It is true that CO2 holds heat better than our atmosphere. The more CO2 we dump into it, the more heat our planet can retain. Up to a point. Where is that point? Is there any science that answers that question? I haven't seen any. Perhaps this is because admitting that the system, the Earth, our beloved planet, will take care of itself means that all the tax money being spent on the green revolution is being wasted. Actually, it isn't the admitting of it that means our rulers are wasting our money, but the fact itself. Admitting it would simply spread the knowledge around. We can't have that, I guess.
So, at some point, the amount of heat in our atmosphere will be such that heat escapes it as fast as it enters it. In fact, that is happening now, except there's a tiny bias one way or the other. Is that bias completely dependent on CO2? How dependent is it on CO2? How much effect does CO2 have on the imbalance of heat loss and heat gain?
The sun is going to keep heating the planet, and if we're really worried about the planet getting too hot, we should look to enhance the existing natural processes through which heat is dissipated, reflected before it gets absorbed, or else trapped in the form of organic material. More emphasis should be placed on the fact that the planet seems to produce more CO2 when it is warmer. Perhaps CO2's quality of holding heat better than the atmosphere is weaker than its quality of helping plants to absorb heat and increase the flow rate of the global water cycle, and so the overall effect of greater atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is to lower the global temperature, at least down to the point where plant life and animal life tend to strike a balance in the carbon cycle. Where is the science on that?
If we had an honest green policy, the questions I have asked would be the ones scientists are working on. They are not, and this is because the assumptions on which the policies are based are probably wrong, and if we did the science to test them, we would discover that the policies are wrong. So instead, we do science to figure out how best to deal with the environment we'd be in if those assumptions were correct. If they are wrong, this is certainly a waste of time. If they aren't wrong, then testing them would certainly bolster the green revolution.