most of the credentialed people who argue against climate change / global warming are paid by the coal / petroleum companies. This represents less than 1 in 90 of the voices in the scientific community.
-
most of the credentialed people who argue for climate change are making under 100K/year. this doesn't seem to be about a money grab for them
-
many criminal investigator us a simple guiding principle - 'follow the money'.
-
I know that the current state of climate change is adversely affecting mostly brown skinned people but no country is immune. The argument we are having 'a cool wet summer' on the east coast of the US of A isn't helping hurricane Harvey or the wild fire victims in the rest of the country. it is a bit like US Senator Inhofe holding a snowball on the floor of the Senate and claiming that it proved global warming doesn't exist - during one of the hottest years on record.
He's the US Senator of Oklahoma - a state with mid sized petroleum assets. He openly collects at least 5 times his senatorial salary from oil companies. He may believe his own statement but it doesn't make it right.
-
it may be that these changes occur over long time scales. But that doesn't make me feel any better about asking my children and grandchildren to clean up my mess.
-
the old adage; if you find yourself in a hole, perhaps you should first stop digging. comes to mind.
-
if the argument is that it isn't human caused but natural. Should we make the effect worse by adding to it?
-
if climate change is going on and man made, curbing our CO2 output will have long lasting beneficial effects to our society.
If climate change is not going on or man made, curbing our CO2 output will have no lasting ill effects on our society.
i choose to err on the side of caution.
-
can you explain - outside the context of climate change - why Miami floods so often now? What has changed? this is a single example of many.
-
you can perform a simple green-house gas experiment in your own kitchen. I did it in primary school and again in college. If you don't believe the rhetoric, do it yourself. This has been used as a classroom experiment since the mid 1800's - it isn't new science. it requires water, baking soda, vinegar, a couple of ziplock bags, a thermometer and a sunny window sill. This isn't complicated or high tech. Just converting visible light into infrared light.
-
question, anyone out there other than me keep bees? Noticed anything unusual in the last 10 years? The effects are more pronounced the closer to the planetary poles you are.
-
remember the story about the 'frog in the pot'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frogmany preppers speak about the normalcy bias in reference to the general population. Can it apply to us?
-
the oil companies have changed their mind about the effects of CO2. They were the advocates of the beneficial changes of warming, until it was noted that it would make feeding the world nearly impossible at this population density. the idea that climate change is a hoax only started recently - within the last 20-30 years. Google koch industries and the history of the coal and oil industries.
from 1991
from 1980
from 1958
check the 1912 article in popular mechanics.
The current 'hoax' opinion is new and doesn't use science as a basis, it uses opinion and propaganda.
-
that's it for my 2 cents. I realize i'm in the minority on this forum. All i'm asking is that you check this for yourself - not just absorb possibly biased information on either side.
in the grand scheme of things it mayn't matter too much. We blew past the 300 ppm atmospheric CO2 mark and the clathrate gun may have already started. Our atmosphere is now in a condition that has never existed during the time humans have inhabited the planet. it takes a few decades for the current atmospheric levels to translate into weather effects. I'm not likely to be alive to see if humanity figures this one out or not.
I wonder if Alex Jones has something to sell you to protect against that
