Claim: To help stop global warming, curb short-lived pollutants

Just because a gas has greenhouse gas properties that doesn’t mean it meaningfully contributes or enhances the greenhouse effect.

Two profs (one a “climate scientist”) write in the Los Angeles Times:

Screen Shot 2015-12-28 at 10.45.07 AM

But methane, for example, is an irrelevant greenhouse gas.

I also take exception to this:

Screen Shot 2015-12-28 at 10.39.48 AM

How do these profs know that climate change “seriously harms human well-being”? That certainly wasn’t the case, for example, with our exit from the Little Ice Age. How do they know thath whatever climate change is ongoing won’t be similarly beneficial?