these are honest..non-leading or pointed questions... (for anyone to answer)Pemba wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:20 pmO, I accept that there is a possibility that the "Other side" might want to make money and distort the narrative. It's just not very convincing that this lies behind the "science" that claims that humans are causing problematic global warming. I don't want to make this any more political than necessary but 187 countries have ratified the Paris agreement, only Trump in his wisdom has pulled out because "he doesn't believe" in global warming (ok, and a bit more than that). 187 countries all fooled by the hippies, the commies, the non GMO lobby etc etc, only Trump has seen through it all ?? It is far far easier to believe that "big oil" etc are contaminating the narrative. But I think I'm open to listening to all arguments. I try to be anyway.Kamikuza wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:54 pmIf you can easily imagine that Big Oil, "the establishment" etc. is making money off it ... why not the "other" side? There's plenty of money in alternate stuff -- just ask the "non-GMO" folks, or the alt med crowd... Hopefully it's not something as petty as making sure your doctorate is topical... Tenure, bitches!Pemba wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:58 pm
As you said, who doesn't have an agenda ? I don't even think you have to be cynical to see the world that way. It's easy to see who might be pushing the "there's no climate change caused by humans" (or however you might want to summarize it) agenda. Big oil, "the establishment" etc. Who's pushing the other side ? It seems few could compete with the first, yet most news outlets appear to support the "climate change caused by humans" agenda. But I guess you could make that argument for the vaccination debate (big pharma vs ??), and thats real as well.
Why would "proof" be essential before considering action ? If there's a reasonable likelihood that the "climate change caused by humans" lobby is right and given the large amount of scientists that agrees with this hypothesis I think there is, should we not do something ? Maybe it's all a conspiracy but personally I don't want to take that risk.
Climate change is not *caused* by humans, but *clearly* the industrial revolution has had a hand in tipping the scales of the natural progression.
But carbon offset credits tax whatever? No, that's just NOT a solution.
Carbon offset credits tax whatever ? Agreed that's probably not a solution, sounds more like something to get political brownie points, maybe something for (most of) the 187 climate accord ratifiers. But I think the "solution" starts at personal level. I really don't want to be telling people what they should or shouldn't do, however I do appreciate anybody that tries. Doing something is better than complaining at others and doing nothing.
#1 do you TRULY believe that humans will (or can) stop global warming?
and then....if you can accept that the planet has history of heating and cooling throughout its history....
#2 do you think there may be blowback or potential ramifications of breaking that natural cycle?
#3 do you feel humans as a whole are smarter than the lump of chemical/physical reactions that we call "mother nature"?
#4 what causeD the previous ice ages to start...and stop... the previous dozen plus times that happened?
(for background.. we have not have a true ice age since western industrialization)