The CO2 data you use for your doom-and-gloom, has been doctored
by those in the religion of global warming.
GIGO....
Which means that, when you start out with flawed data, and with flawed analysis, and flawed results, everything else that follows, will reflect the junk science results.
If one were to manipulate the numbers for economic activity, and all of the analysis were to be deliberately skewed to show a great economy with massive new employment, then, people might start believing those numbers, even when the reality on the ground tells them something different. Same with junk science, where there are people who have an agenda, which necessitates that, the data and the models for analysis be made to fit a predefined set of results. CO2 levels have been falsely magnified to make them fit the narrative of the global warming junk-scientists. When you start out with a false premise, you will end up with blatantly wrong analysis and conclusions.
