The problem with climate change is not that the data are inaccurate, but the propaganda surrounding the interpretation of said data. Both industry and academia are guilty of peddling exaggerates claims focusing on incomplete context, and thus, proffering ridiculous "solutions." You have described the foolishness of industrialists who claim pollutants they dump into our living quarters are harmless, but do not mention the ludicrous claims of academics, pontificating from their ivory towers, divorced from reality.

Consider the hasty changes in terminology when discussing global pollution. First, it was global warming that was to melt the glaciers and drown coastal cities within 10-years with sea water. Then, the term conveniently morphed to climate change when the fluctuations in global temperatures did to concord with their apocalyptic hypothesis.

The attack on fossile fuel industries and promoting alternative energy for "reduction of carbon emissions" is equally asinine. Petrol products are used in virtually every manufactured product in the civilized world. Unless the plan of the academic leftists is to collapse our current civilization technical matrix to that of Medieval technical achievements, complete with high infant mortality, monumental deaths from infections, starvation subsistence, etc. then the academics have no viable solution to the current environmental problems.

Since human beings' very existence produces the pollitant the academics so dread, carbon dioxide, the only permanent solution to our environmental crisis, according to the academic framework, would be to liquidate 90-95% of humanoids that inhabit this planet. From this perspective, humanity ought to be cheerful that the Syrians are dying in droves, and the atheist Marxist bureaucrats who wiped out 100 million souls are heroes of environmentalism.

The problem of myopia plagues both sides of the environmental debate equally.