Several times you have been asked WHY "the scales have been tipped a certain way". You've never provided an answer.
There are a lot of them, apparently. WHO precisely has this agenda and WHY are they promoting it so assiduously?
I'll provide an answer, but it's rather long.
There are both good and bad aspects to many activities.
There is no doubt that we are polluting the land, oceans and atmosphere as a result of our industrial activities which provide the prosperous lifestyle we enjoy.
There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels without adequate emission controls results in smog and haze consisting of high levels of particulate carbon, and toxic chemicals such as Sulphur Dioxide, Mercury, Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, Arsenic, Lead, and other toxic heavy metals.
There's no doubt that such toxic emissions have health consequences for those who are most exposed to such pollution, such as people living in cities who are also exposed to the additional pollution from petrol and diesel vehicles.
There are obviously major environmental problems that should be addressed. The question is, what is likely to be the most effective way of addressing such problems?
The history of mankind suggests that one cannot expect whole populations to do the right thing simply because it's sensible and rational. Many people are driven by greed for wealth and power, and others for basic necessities in order to survive. Corruption in politics and business is entrenched, world-wide, although it's worse in some countries than others. The Volkswagen scandal, using "defeat devices" to reduce emissions during testing, is a case in point.
Imagine if Nuclear Power became the norm in all countries, including undeveloped countries. Imagine the consequences of safety measures being compromised in order to reduce costs.
About 50 years ago when China began developing its economy, it wasn't interested in building the more expensive, 'state-of-the-art', coal-fired power stations with good emission controls for the 'real' pollutants. It built the cheapest power stations, to produce the cheapest energy, so it could produce the cheapest products to flood the world market and expand its economy.
As a result, the haze, smog and pollution in its cities was horrendous, and it is still unacceptable today despite improvements in technology. In India, it's even worse.
However, Carbon Dioxide, which is by far the major gas emitted from coal-burning and other fossil fuels, is the most expensive and difficult emission to control or sequester. However, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a clear, odourless gas which is essential for all life, and current increases, as a result of the industrial revolution, have been enormously beneficial for plant growth and food production, world-wide.
This benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 levels is of course denied by 'AGW Alarmists'. They concentrate on the very uncertain negative consequences of increased warming due to the very uncertain effects of tiny increases in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, pretending that the uncertainties do not exist, or are insignificant.
Their plan is to create the maximum alarm about the dangers of CO2 emissions in order to encourage the transition to renewables such as solar and wind and electric vehicles, which do not emit the real and harmful polluting gases, even in countries with high levels of corruption and/or incompetent management.
That approach might seem justified, and was supported by the late Professor Stephen Schneider. I would also support that approach if the exaggerations were confined to the 'real' threats to human health.
For example, I recall watching a video, many years ago, of Stephen Schneider answering questions from an audience of journalists and skeptics, about the exaggeration of the effects of CO2 emissions in the scientific reporting.
His answer made sense. His analogy was, if you want to discourage people from taking up smoking cigarettes, and/or encourage them to give up smoking, it might not be sufficiently effective to provide the precise scientific data that indicates there is, say, a 20% increase in the risk of getting lung cancer, according to the statistical analysis of those in hospitals with lung cancer.
Many people might think, I'll take the risk if it's only 20%. Exaggerating the risk to, say, 75%, will be more effective, and that benefit to the population at large could perhaps justify the scientific dishonesty.
Unfortunately, this analogy breaks down when applied to CO2 emissions because the scare about CO2 is not confined to lung problems due to the other, 'real' pollutants.
The scare about CO2 emissions is mainly focused on an increase in devastating extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, and so on, which are all natural events that have occurred frequently in the past, and sometimes destroyed entire civilizations.
Reducing our CO2 emissions in the expectation that such extreme weather events will decrease in the future, could be disastrous. We already have the knowledge and technology to protect ourselves from such extreme weather events, but we continue to build inadequate houses in known flood plains and areas that experience a severe hurricane or cyclone every 20 years or so.
In order to maintain the scare about CO2, the media so often describes such events as 'unprecedented', but anyone who takes the trouble to investigate the historical record should find that such extreme weather events are very rarely unprecedented. They will usually find a record of a greater flood or hurricane or drought in their area even before CO2 levels began rising.
Over the years, thousands of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars worth of damage to property will occur because of the emphasis on the reduction of CO2 emissions, instead of organizing and shaping our suburbs, cities and landscape with the expectation that previous extreme weather events, unconnected with mankind's CO2 emissions, will continue to occur. This is why I'm deeply concerned about the issue. Okay?