Separate names with a comma.
Members see less ads - Click here to become a member for FREE
I thought probableballistics was how fast your bullets went....probably.
Yes, but it’s probablisky just a theory.
I don't consider my heels dug in and that was calling a spade a spade. If the scientific consensus were different I would likely also follow that. I read and look at the evidence and if it were presented in a compelling way to say it was not happening or that human impact was unlikely, that would be convincing.
No, it felt like 104...
The scientific community is not driven by a need to persuade. That is not their world. The media is what drives misinformation about what researchers do. You "read and look at the evidence"---This is good. You also state that "if I were presented in a compelling way" etc. -that you may become convinced. This is also good. Question--When you seek information where do you go for it? --Do you stop shopping at the first store? When anyone plants their feet they are obligated to know where they are planting them. If they intend to be teachers -it takes more than something that- may be- less than "compelling" as an answer to a question. This is a serious question for all that applies to many topics. The comedy of -all of us teaching each other- about stuff that we are all laymen at is frustrating.
I'm just saying, examine the situation objectively and do your own thinking rather than basing your beliefs on what some random government shill spits out. Consider all factors that impact the global climate, I mean REALLY think about it in depth and make up your own mind based on the available evidence. We are as insignificant as a flea on a elephants back. We ARE part of the immediate climate issues such as air quality, ocean cleanliness and species die off. But global weather? Nope.
I agree that all of us should continue to evaluate and think about the evidence. I do this, and independently, I find the evidence that man has had an impact to be compelling. I however, also defer to consensus of the larger body of scientists. The global science community is larger than the government scientific enterprise and do not reach a significantly different conclusion. I also don't characterize the government scientists as shills, but I think that term was used for effect. Let's say the consensus changes, which it could because science is an evolving body of knowledge and understanding. If it shows humans had no influence, we will all know and I will reach a different conclusion. What I see changing are the arguments by those reticent to accept the science as a whole. We have seen the argument change about climate change even occurring. We now see arguments shifting from human impact to "it costs too much to do something" and "people should adapt, move/migrate". If the scientists are right, we are facing a time of very tough decisions and responsibility. My personal opinion is that we cannot say we are responsible for the change because the costs are too great and the implications too dire. I suspect most of us here will be dead before that point, but it is not clear to me whether that is 100% certain. The descent into the little ice age was fast and had significant societal impact. Climate can rearrange on decadal timescales and it would suck if there was a nonlinear feedback or teleconnection that flipped our world more rapidly than we anticipate. Let's watch climate, but also watch water and food and soil.
I find that you are a sensible human. I hope we figure out how to feed and water 10 billion people soon. It's a more pressing issue. We can't do much about natural catastrophes.
Many may remember this 1977 Time article that an Ice Age was coming
The media will never figure this one out
We had one of the coldest Winters in history last year.
110 years ago this area set a record....and the temps here matched it a few days ago but didn't break that record. I believe we have some affect on the earth but not enough to actually change the temps/climate. Mutha nature does that one imo. I know a scientist and he just laughs when I bring up the subject of humans having anything to do with climate change but hey, he could be wrong. We can take sample cores from the bottom of the ocean or from deep in the ice and make an educated guess of what was happening oh so long ago. It's just hard for me to fathom that humans in just 250 (give or take) years of being industrialized would or even could have anything to do with climate change. Then on the other hand, I feel the heat coming off the concrete just in my own driveway! Thing is, when it comes to the earth, it was going through climate changes long before we were here and 250 years of industry is a flash in the pan with it comes to the age of the earth and all it's been through.
Or if all else fails ask greta what to do