Not only politicizing science but making facts optional because some find them inconvenient should be criminal. These idiots are standing in front of a stampede of cattle, thinking if they turn their backs, nothing will happen.
The political leaders who support this sort of obfuscation are scum.
“It’s a complicated topic that can be difficult to communicate,” the agency claims.
The lead image from NOAA’s 2016 news release on its Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Index shows where GHGs come from.
In a truly shocking news release on its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has erased any reference to “human activity” or fossil fuels. The index monitors the warming influence of greenhouse gases like CO2.
We can make a very good estimate of how much carbon is due to fossil fuels. From a wide variety of different approaches.
Look at the change in baseline. Before 1800, the two lines are parallel. After 1800, they both go up, at almost the same rates and the same extent.
In contrast to all other sources of carbon, organic carbon is enriched in C12 over C13. So measuring the changing in C12 ratios over C13 tells us how much carbon comes from fossil fuels burnt by humans.
The increase in C12, and decrease in C13, in the atmosphere almost exactly parallels the global emissions from humans. The change in carbon isotope levels are huge, compared to natural processes. It took thousands of years for there to be a 0.03% change in the ratio. In the last 150 years, the ratio has changed 5 times faster than that.
There is not other model to explain how this fossil fuel fingerprint based on carbon isotope ratios could have happened except through the burning of fossil fuels by humans.
By mass balance.
The burning of fossil fuels uses up oxygen, so one might expect to see an imbalance in the amount of oxygen found in the atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuels.
Which is just what we see.
There is a lot of different evidence, from as disparate things as lake beds, ice cores, tree rings and satellite measurements. There is no model that explains all of the changes seen other than warming due to human processes. None.
And the anthropogenic warming models fit the data (both data present at the time of the model and data that is produced in the future) very well. There is no other model that comes close.
Only people who wish to hurt billions, in fact kill millions, for their own profit, for their own yearning for illegitimate power, would ignore these models. What do we call someone who kills purely to make themselves richer? Someone who knowingly spreads deceit and falsehoods that kill in order to have more power? Who support crimes against humanity by removing all hint that we might be responsible for climate change?
I call them scum. Others, including history, will not be as gentle.