Klimakrise - CO2 Steuer

Alles was du hier anführst sind typische "denial" Scheingefechte!
Bis heute hast du noch keine Quelle mit [b]Modellen [/b]genannt,  die Prognosen für den rasanten Anstieg (es geht nicht um die absolute Höhe, es geht um die Geschwindigkeit des Anstiegs)  der letzten 50 Jahre macht. Warum? Weil es keine gibt!!!! Ohne den Einfluss des menschlichen CO2 gibt es KEIN MODELL das dieses Phänomen erklärt!!! Es gab Versuche der Denial Wissenschaftler (Homeland Institute gesponsort) in den 90ern. Prognose: Temperatur Abfall in den nächsten 30 Jahren...genau das Gegnteil ist eingetreten.  

American Physical Society (keine IPCC Wissenschaftler....Geophysik, Astro-Physik, High Energy Pysics...):

"A number of studies using this technique have recently found evidence of human influence on climate. These studies, plus other changes in weather and temperature patterns, lead working group I of the IPCC to conclude that, while there still many uncertainties, ìthe balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.î3

The degree to which the climate will change in the future is still uncertain. However climate change may lead to significant damage to both human and natural systems. Estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are also uncertain and a definitive cost-benefit calculation which compares climate change damages to mitigation costs is not possible at this time.

Stripped of the baggage associated with political and economic interests, much of the debate over climate change boils down to differences in values. Technological change and a general increase in wealth through economic growth will leave the world better able to deal with this issue in the future. However, some, perhaps small, amount of damage will accrue in the interim. A risk-averse viewpoint argues for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to avoid the possibility of harm. An opposite view advocates waiting until we are more certain about climate change effects (and more able to effect changes). This part of the debate will be better informed, but not solved, by improved science."

Hier mal ein paar Wissenschaftsverbände und Ing. Verbände..
 
https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-...limate.cfm
https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-...limate.cfm
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.eps.org/resour...ol2015.pdf
https://www.wfeo.org/wp-content/uploads/...tement.pdf
https://www.eurekalert.org/images/2016cl...-28-16.pdf


Auch die russischen Wissenschaftler sind sich eigentlich einig...
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/0...emissions/


Sinnvoller Artikel zum "slowing down of global warming"
https://www.nature.com/news/increased-sc...ed-1.21913
https://www.nature.com/articles/545037a  (für dich: nature ist nicht greenpeace..sondern mit "science" das führende, hart geprüfte,  Multi-Disziplinäre Wissenschafts Journal)
https://www.nature.com/articles/545037a