I'd pick the one where the $275T didn't go to scammers, but instead ended up in the hands of folks seizing the means of production with it to create the blessings of civilization themselves, and cutting off parasitic 'useless eaters' like Yuval Hariri, Kill Gates, John Kerry, and King Charles from their sole source of wealth and power, and that's why. I like all the people I've met that have merit because they carry their weight, and I dislike all the people I've met that suck wealth out of my wallet.

so first and foremost, you want whatever serves your financial interest the most, and then you want people who act in a way that they are aligned with your view of meritocracy to benefit, and then you want people whose actions go against what's right in your view of meritocracy to be either punished or not have the opportunity to against your view of meritocracy. okay

Water vapor is ~90% of the GHG in Earth's atmosphere. The minor gases like CO2 and methane all together contribute the other ~10% of greenhouse effect. Without the GHG effect Earth would be a ball of ice, much like Europa and other moons and asteroids across the solar system in which liquid water is only in protected regions under the solid crust. Maybe life can exist in such places, but life on Earth in all it's robust fecundity is only possible because of GHG's that keep the temperature warm enough on the surface for all three phases of water to exist.

Nasa says CO2 represents 20% alone, while clouds and water vapor represent 75% combined. Because CO2 traps heat, there's more heat, which means more water vapor, which also means more clouds. This means that an increase in CO2 also leads to an increase in the amount of the rest of GHGs. So more CO2 means more heat across 95% of the GHG board, not just in the CO2 part.

define climate

climate means the regional weather patterns of a certain region for at least a 30 years span. how different is this normative definition from what you had in mind, in your opinion?

Anyway, my personal take on this stuff isn't much use to you.

your personal "take", or rather, your scientifical understanding of this topic is relevant because I wouldn't take you seriously if I noticed you are content with parroting. "flat earth" believers and "we never went to the moon" believers are generally content with parroting. I expect you to either be better than them, or I expect you to be okay with not being taken seriously and to serve as an example of a pattern others shouldn't buy in