>Everyone admits the climate changes, dunce.
No, if you Google you can find people who totally deny it's happening at all.
>The sales pitch now by the environmental alarmists is if the climate changes it's caused by humans, which is totally false.
How is it possible that the pollution of 7 billion humans has zero effect whatsoever on the atmosphere?
Physically, how is that possible? Do those emissions just vanish? What is driving oceanic acidification, if not the reaction of surplus CO2 and seawater forming carbonic acid?
>It's no longer sold as global warming because all climate models fail at correct predictions, real measurements don't match up with the climate science predictions, and never is described what percent of change is human and what percent is natural.
That's not what this says: nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Climatologists have been wrong before. Every field of science is like that. Creationists like to pick out the hoaxes like Piltdown man and various wrong ideas in the early days of evolutionary theory like Lamarckism to make evolution itself appear wrong. Is it? Do mistakes made by evolutionary biologists prove evolution is false?
>So as no convincing evidence can be sold to the public, the alarmists muddy the waters and sell all change as human-caused and say massive centralised control and micromanagement of choices is needed.
This is your narrative. I would like you to consider mine.
If you're looking to fool people and make money, which approach is more airtight: Basing your scam on a hoax, or on a real phenomenon?
If you base it on a hoax, you will be found out. But if you base it on a real phenomenon, your opponents will attack that aspect, making fools out of themselves.
You smell a rat, and there is one, but not where you think. Positioning cap and trade as the only possible solution is the scam, not climate change.