Climate change is a cesspit of halfwits and perverse incentives. In grade school, we're taught the simplified model that plants photosynthesize, consuming CO2 and producing oxygen; while animals respire, consuming oxygen and producing CO2. Since the real world is governed by the Pareto Principle, meaning exponential complexity as you go deeper and edge-cases become significant, plants also undergo respiration and give off CO2. The high upper-bound of environmental science complexity is a perfect match for Dunning-Kruger. I was at least admit that I didn't have the competence to come to a conclusion on climate-change in high-school, and still can only come to conclusions on the socio-political factors surrounding such.

Laymen and non-market profiteers (govt. and legacy media backed climate research tied to approaching a predetermined conclusion) wind up in a negative feedback loop because of the combined general dearth of civic virtue, inadvertent indoctrination, and perverse incentive. Wanting to reduce pollution and have a healthy environment is a good thing, but the cognitive dissonance in disregarding trade-offs and real consequences is staggering. That it's socially favorable to not earnestly challenge folk on their shallow beliefs depresses me.