I get what you’re saying here and bluntly, those people are not scientists. If you neither want to go and earn the knowledge necessary to be an authority on the subject, nor listen to those that are, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.
I’ll be fair in saying that CO2 is not the only contributor to global climate change. The environment is a complex intermingling of a lot of different influences. With that said, this is something we know for a fact, at the very least, does not help. Alternatives exist for almost every case. Why stick with the “clearly not helping” method, than going with the “at least we’re trying” alternative?
Disclaimer, I haven’t earned the title of expert in the subject, I just try to listen to those who have earned that title. I am not nearly as up to date on the subject as some others, so I invite someone to expand and/or correct any of my statements who knows the material better than me. Such is the scientific method. Lively discussion and debate culminating in studies and tests to determine who is wrong… (Spoiler, sometimes everyone is wrong)
Regardless, IMO, anyone denying a change based on the stated reasons, is trying to serve their own interests. Whether that’s enabling them to contribute to make poor decisions, or maybe they have something to gain by trying to block any progress away from fossil fuels. Maybe they own stock in a petrol company. Who knows?
I’ll have to look up the names, but those people are literally climate scientists. I’ve heard them interviewed.
I’ll read the rest of your comment later when I have more time but if that’s your starting assumption you can just reconsider your whole position now because the things I reported came from the mouths of scientists.
I get what you’re saying here and bluntly, those people are not scientists. If you neither want to go and earn the knowledge necessary to be an authority on the subject, nor listen to those that are, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.
I’ll be fair in saying that CO2 is not the only contributor to global climate change. The environment is a complex intermingling of a lot of different influences. With that said, this is something we know for a fact, at the very least, does not help. Alternatives exist for almost every case. Why stick with the “clearly not helping” method, than going with the “at least we’re trying” alternative?
Disclaimer, I haven’t earned the title of expert in the subject, I just try to listen to those who have earned that title. I am not nearly as up to date on the subject as some others, so I invite someone to expand and/or correct any of my statements who knows the material better than me. Such is the scientific method. Lively discussion and debate culminating in studies and tests to determine who is wrong… (Spoiler, sometimes everyone is wrong)
Regardless, IMO, anyone denying a change based on the stated reasons, is trying to serve their own interests. Whether that’s enabling them to contribute to make poor decisions, or maybe they have something to gain by trying to block any progress away from fossil fuels. Maybe they own stock in a petrol company. Who knows?
To me, it’s just a bad faith argument.
I’ll have to look up the names, but those people are literally climate scientists. I’ve heard them interviewed.
I’ll read the rest of your comment later when I have more time but if that’s your starting assumption you can just reconsider your whole position now because the things I reported came from the mouths of scientists.