This man is a retired professor of atomic physics. Does this make him a scientist we should listen to in regards to rapid climate changes? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
He was bribed by secret activists to write fake report about CO2 emmissions but declined unless they donated money secretly to anti climate science group. He warned it would likely not pass peer review.
A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council. Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist.
This is like grasping at straws.
I agree just taxing carbon without realistic measurements, targets, rebates and investment in cleaner energy will be ineffective. We are getting something in between and need to push for something better plus transparency and accountability.
Let’s weight pros and cons of reducing emissions – if climate change is a hoax, we still get better air. Do we want to ignoring the warning from most governments, 97% or more of experienced climate scientists plus many financial and economic experts? Many of them are saying our species will suffer greatly and risks going extinct. Resisting cleaning up our environment is like resisting a clean house, neighborhood or city we live in. What is the harm in trying in sustainable and meaningful ways.
The climate has changed in warming and cooling periods for over a billion years. Nearly everyone agrees. The experts agree the Earth’s orbit and Sun’s solar activity has had effects but not as rapid as we are seeing. The part often ignored is the geological evidence spanning hundreds of thousands of years that indicate the climate is changing at a much faster rate than before.
This showing in global average air and ocean surface and depth temperatures plus the number of species struggling or failing to adapt. The oceans absorb 90% of the energy and this causing more extreme weather, rapid acceleration in severity and more impact to humans and wildlife.
It is hard to argue the amount of coal, oil and gas consumed by humans has not contributed to the acceleration.