>Clearly we have different data sets. this seems to be an ongoing problem, few people understand this at the level required (including me) and what looks like conflicting data is sometimes both concepts being right (like the methane figure of 84, is also 25) The problem for Poal is that they only listen to the handful of people who oppose this, and not the thousands of scientists who say this is basically irrefutable at this point. Poal's response is always something like "tRuSt thE sCieNcE" and thus the conversation goes nowhere :| >MIT says water vapor is 97% of greenhouse gas. Makes sense because co2 only Makes up. 036% of the atmosphere. 1/120th of water vapor content. using percentages is misleading. water vapour isn't directly affected by what humans do, the climate is reacting to increasing CO2/methane levels and heat load, therefore water vapour isn't causing an imbalance. There is a limit to how much water vapour the atmosphere can hold, but CO2 is a non-condensable gas so there is no limit If CO2 hadn't increased, then water vapour would have remained stable, this is the positive feedback loop >claims that co2 absorbs heat therefore is a greenhouse gas is bullshit. https://byjus.com/questions/why-does-carbon-dioxide-absorb-infrared-radiation/ "CO2 is a good absorber of infrared radiation (@15um)" "the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating." Water absorbs IR by getting hotter, but doesn't re-emit it like CO2 methane absorbs IR at a higher wavelength (but yes overlapping) to CO2 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1746366 Methane accounts for about 20% of the heating effects by all of the greenhouse gases water vapour persists until it rains Methane persists in the atmosphere 12 years, CO2 persists for 300 to 1,000 years, methane is more important because we need to reduce this right now, but we will be living with CO2 for basically forever >Potholer on youtube did the best explanation on the role CO2 has If you think a source is valid then you should listen to the rebuttal and then weigh them both up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE-zY0roNfw . It's interesting how "Conservatives" have arrived at the position of 'not being interested in conserving anything' Personally I blame Trump, if he hadn't mocked the whole thing then his less than intelligent base wouldn't have jumped on board too. None of these people know what is going on, they are opposing something for no other reason than wanting to be in his cult of personality. This isn't really helped by the Left being quite so evangelical and censorial about it either, because my default reaction is always to oppose what they think. But I remember the summer of 1976, when the tarmac melted into big waves. Likewise 2003 and 2006 were super hot, and today is 30degC (which for the UK is basically unheard of). I haven't seen a snowdrift for like three freaking decades now. I don't really want to get into 'well what about this graph...', I just wanted to offer what I think are clarifications to your points. I'm old enough to notice that something is really fucked up with the weather these days, and the current overwhelming climate change consensus is good enough for me. I'm sure most people can't afford and don't want to change their lifestyle, but IMO it's more important to do something to help and maybe be wrong, than to follow a dummy like Trump and do absolutely nothing for the sake of his ego and poll numbers.