She has permitted herself to be indoctrinated by the politics of the so-called "climate" problem.
When politics is injected into any issue, that issue gets confused, muddled, and impossible to empirically examine.
According, when politics was injected into the "climate emergency," the possibility of any rational and/or trustworthy investigation went out the window.
We don't know if it is a man-made problem, if carbon emissions even contribute to it (if it even exists), or if so-called "clean air" efforts on the part of the developed world will have any effect given the lack of response by China and India.
What we do know is that solutions being pushed so far will have a devastating effect on the economies of the developed countries.
[[We don’t know if it is a man-made problem, if carbon emissions even contribute to it]]
It is known that long before the industrial a ge, co2 was over double what it is today after many hundreds of years of industry- we also know from ice core samples, that co2 rises 800 years or more after temperatures rise, so that fact right there proves that co2 is not a driver of temperature rising.
Where did all the co2 come from preindustrial age? It was e timely 100% natural. Climate alarmists love to say thst the recent rise is “entirely from man”, yet studies show thst before man’s cr3ation of co2, co2 was over double what it is today. Many factors contribute to the I crease in atmospheric co2, and nature is the biggest contributor, as we’ve seen in the past. To say thst today’s s,ight I crease is man’s fault in ores thst nature is fully capable of increasing g it far greater.
And besides, co2 does not drive temperatures temperatures drive the rise in co2- 100’s of years later
Since climate has changed both gradually and rapidly in the past, and since we are carbon-based life forms, it is clearly not a man-made problem. In fact, calling it a problem is part of the lie.