outland144k
soens
outland144k
Mostly, I've found those who choose to disbelieve the scientific studies often continue to use the term "global warming" in order to debunk the idea in their next sentence. The issues of which climatologists, meteorologists, and others speak are not limited to "global warming" at all.
If it helps, I don't believe in "climate change" either.
Actual scientific data proves that the climate has changed drastically throughout Earth's existence, so why wouldn't we expect to see it still changing?
The difference here is who/what is changing the climate and the rate at which it is changing. Hence, the proposed term "antropocene" to describe the current state of affairs, climate-wise. FWIW.
Up and down in this armpit of North Europe. Early snow in November, then between -8C and +8C except for the
northern part of the country, where the weather is good for winter tourism.
And regarding the above quotes....
I'm sure the scientists do know the climate history of this globe.
To me, there are two basic arguments or "problem definitions" in this matter:
1) Nobody knows exactly and for sure how, when and what is causing how much of what at the moment.
The number of variables is immense. However, if the leading scientists all around the world agree upon the seriousness of the situation (even though disagree about some details), then I, an average industrial worker, have little reason to assume I know better. The actual scientific data also shows, that changes, that used to take thousands of years, have lately taken place in a few decades.
2) Even if the degree and effect of the expected warming would be far less than the worst case scenarios, it would still change the world as we know it very dramatically. So much actually, that even the thought of it is too much to handle for many. And does it actually make a difference if the problems are expected to start 100 years or 300 years from now?
If it happens we can do something to minimize the problems, or to postpone them by a few hundred years, then shouldn't we? If we do things "in vain", there's hardly any damage. If we don't do anything and the "prophecies" are correct, we'll be in deep troubles generations earlier than otherwise inevitable.