I agree, opposing views based on equally credible evidence is absolutely fine. However some people will have opposing views in the face of overwhelming evidence. All it takes is a quick scan of any journal to see the evidence for climate change. Methane concentrations and pumping carbon from the ground into the atmosphere do play a role in climate change - we know this because we can observe planets like Venus and Mars.
Obviously those did it of their own accord, and so the same could happen to earth, however the same processes that have superheated venus are happening now on earth, and we are the ones accelerating that process.
It also boggles me how much opposition climate change has received. At worst, let's say we are wrong, we will be more dependent on renewable energy (which we are going to need to be anyway once stocks run out). On the other side of the coin, the worst that could happen is far more worrying.
I'd rather be wrong and have cleaner air than be right and die on a superheated planet with my skin bubbling. But to each their own.
I trust the 97% of climate scientists on this.
So part of my view on this is that if we are wrong that it is man made, we DIE. Since the climate DOES seem to be warming and we can agree on that (the climate and everything on this planet is constantly changing) - being so arrogant to assume we are the driving force is what will get us killed, because our efforts are possibly in the entirely wrong place.
But people love to think humans are in control of everything - just like they love to blame a random new virus on politicians, etc. Humans don't have near the control they are arrogant enough to think they have.
As far as mars/Venus I would bet the data strongly supports that humans are NOT causing global warming, if we even have much of the data. Most likely we lack data and only have small sames. Dilling ice samples is tough on earth, finding ice samples on those planets is even tougher.
But the data has to be taken lightly anyway because it is apples and oranges, mice and humans.
Except it's not ONLY the government saying it. Most climate researchers arent government employees. You can choose to be a skeptic all you like, it's your grandchildren who will pay the price.
We all know that funding for research has to come from somewhere, and we all know that science that supports what those funding sources want to believe do, often, get more funding. In every area of science. And research that goes against the expected outcome is often not published.
Regardless, I still have not seen any experiment that can demonstrate that humans have much cause. I can agree we should protect our environment and strive for newer technology that improves our impact on the environment, but I don't see much evidence we are driving much change that wouldn't otherwise happen.
The cost of a superheated planet is everyone dies. We have been through several extinction events on this planet already, and I'm pretty sure extinction is worse than 50 trillion dollars.
Most of these extinction events occur due to atmospheric conditions. For example, a giant volcanic eruption pumped out 14T tons of carbon into the atmosphere which caused soil and seawater to superheat.
Quite a few extinction events are linked to CO2 balance. The Triassic period ended likely due to volcanic activity and causing massive amounts of CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere once again.
Now here we are, doing this process voluntarily. Drilling up carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere. Carbon naturally makes it way back into the earth, but we are pumping it out faster than it can regulate.
I agree with everything you said up until the last paragraph, and those things we agree on I see as being a really good, almost overwhelming evidence, reason to be skeptical of man being a real driving force here.
But what if we spend $50T and only then finally admit there was no evidence man caused it and we were wrong?
Then we have wasted time and resources and find out $50T should have been spent on a real solution to the real problem. But too late then, we will all be dead.
This chart highlights exactly this:
View attachment 198798
This chart reminds me of college stats and how you can just show the top portion of a bar chart to really give the impression of a big difference when it is really very minor.
But still, it looks like the temp change from 1900-1940 was about the same as from 1840-2019. So we are doing pretty good. It took twice as long to achieve the same delta, and for the first 50 of thpse years man made climate change was barely know.. more evidence that maybe our efforts and beliefs that we are impactful are misplaced.
But charts are not evidence. They are graphics. I still would like to see an experiment. I haven't seen any in any journals, but you mentioned just browsing one had it. Would like to see it.
'police rip biden's repeated advice to shoot suspects in the leg'
police reject the 'incredibly ignorant suggestion'
biden needs to spend a week in a patrol car on southside of chicago.
Like he could last 2 hours.
Also, assuming this chart is truly legit, it is only evidence the planet it getting hotter, it is in no way evidence that man is its primary contributor if any at all.
Your not going to stop the climate from changing, its impossible....at least not on an "official" short term level, but as I always say they can turn that chart around if they want no problem but they dont want you to know about that.
We may be able to do something about climate change, if we learn more about it and figure out the real causes - and that would be a better way to spent $50T...advancing tech so that we can figure out something to help.