And of course the thousands of climate modellers haven't thought of that. You've solved it!! Milankovitch (and other) cycles are well known and clearly entered into the models. What they don't do is explain the rate of change in the last century or two, nor eruption emissions, nor ocean current changes. What we do know is adding a **** ton of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, at around the proportion we release does result in what we are seeing. Agreed. Even if you don't agree in ACC at the very least you should be agreeing that using resources more conservatively and causing less pollution is a good thing, not that many people care (see US republicans and their feelings towards the EPA). We are burning through resources faster than the planet can replenish them and unfortunately that means for future generations climate change is just one of a multitude of things they are going to have to deal with. Climate change is a symptom of the problem (one of many that I'd argue are just as serious). It's the raised temperature of a flu patient, there's still the vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, runny nose and fatigue that we have hardly considered dealing with (things like biodiversity collapse, deforestation, global pollution of water sources, resources use etc). I'd recommend you look at how patents work. You can't just horde them. You don't use them, you lose them. There isn't some kind of petrochemical conspiracy theory, otherwise how do you explain companies like Tesla? Why didn't "Shell" just buy them out when they were smaller? A lot of them are. And any patent that is integral to a standard has a set fee to allow anyone to use it without being priced out of the market.