I’m happy to debate with anyone along lines of things like politics and economics and things where people can look at things in different ways and it’s a difference in philosophy.
I've never said we shouldn't make an effort to stop pollution.. of course we should, what I'm saying is that the I don't believe that carbon dioxide has any links to climate change, it certainly never did in the past, in fact past levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been many multiples of what they are today, 4000 PPM hundreds of millions of years ago didn't lead to run away climate change like the 410 PPM is doing now or so we are told, the 4000 PPM was during the cambrian explosion the greatest leap forward in life the planet ever saw. There is videos on YouTube showing the difference in plant growth in high carbon atmosphere compared to low carbon the difference is astonishing, bigger, stronger healthier plants grow in high carbon.
I don't know I've never been in in a high carbon dioxide atmosphere, only the extremely low carbon dioxide atmosphere we currently live in.
The way I think about climate change and global warming is, that the vast consensus believe that this is an actual threat and is already causing severe environmental damage. If we can do something about it then we should make it a priority. I’m not a scientist or expert so I am trusting their authority on the matter. If the threat is being exaggerated and action we take is not needed and unnecessary then that’s great news, however, if the threat is as they say and we take no action then that would be disastrous so the obvious course of action is to believe it’s real and happening and act accordingly.
Would you still trust their authority if they were changing data? The hockey stick graph is a great example they left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age, this gave the impression of a perfectly stable climate only for the current warming trend to look severe.. in 1990 before the alarm there was a graph by the IPCC but 21 years later there was a new graph by the IPCC same organization same data fields different data figures just when it was needed for Al Gore to begin the hoax .
Like I said, will still trust their authority that current trends are due to climate change. Especially when correlated with things like this:Would you still trust their authority if they were changing data? The hockey stick graph is a great example they left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age, this gave the impression of a perfectly stable climate only for the current warming trend to look severe.. in 1990 before the alarm there was a graph by the IPCC but 21 years later there was a new graph by the IPCC same organization same data fields different data figures just when it was needed for Al Gore to begin the hoax .
Have you seen how bad wild fires in the USA have been? proof of climate change its never burned as much? a major upward trend since 1986 what an odd year to start a graph I wonder why they started that year?
Look a graph since 1916, amazing to see that 1986 is near enough a record low, by starting the first graph at a low point it makes things look worse. Now look at how bad was it previously? Ignore that probably started by farmers clearing their land nothing to do with climate well that's the reason given as to why it's not relevant today, while leaving in current fires started by people.
Behind Most Wildfires, a Person and a Spark: ‘We Bring Fire With Us’ (Published 2018)
Climate change may be making California’s wildfires more extreme, but they are almost all ignited by human activity, not natural causes.www.nytimes.com
I'd be more inclined to believe "experts" if they weren't changing historical data or starting graphs at a very specific year to make their claims look legitimate.
It's not as simple as that, if we are wrong then taking action will have very serious consequences, currently the earth is not producing much carbon dioxide (naturally) humans are adding to it no question.Like I said, will still trust their authority that current trends are due to climate change. Especially when correlated with things like this:
Polar ice caps melting six times faster than in 1990s
Losses of ice from Greenland and Antarctica are tracking the worst-case climate scenario, scientists warnwww.theguardian.com
I don’t see why people have such a problem with just going with it. We could of course all be wrong but I don’t see what the detriment is to taking action. You could of course also be wrong with a huge detriment to taking no action. That’s what climate change deniers just don’t consider. It’s ridiculous.
I can’t see the motives behind scientists pressuring us into committing a massive act of self harm to be honest. In addition, without wishing to go too much into it, I think you’re reasoning there is extremely questionable as it would take something insane to happen for there to be a dangerous drop in CO2 levels.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.. you provide a graph that said here's proof that CO2 levels have never been higher.. by never they mean in the last thousand years.. explain why they would say never but only produce evidence of a thousand years? When there is evidence going back millions of years.I can’t see the motives behind scientists pressuring us into committing a massive act of self harm to be honest. In addition, without wishing to go too much into it, I think you’re reasoning there is extremely questionable as it would take something insane to happen for there to be a dangerous drop in CO2 levels.
Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph
See how levels have never been higher with this fully interactive CO2 graph featuring current & historical CO2 levels and global temperatures. A project by the 2 Degrees Institute.www.co2levels.org
