Where did you find that info?

That's something I've been trying to find so I can have a more educated opinion on this. I don't want to be like ********** and not even question what we are being told.

i'm not looking at it politically, and i'm not suggesting temp change is THE catalyst. in fact, i think the politicization of the science went horribly wrong when the politicians tied pollution to temp.

but that's beside the point, the cause and effects of the global climate include wide variances, when there is a small degree in temp change, there are other changes that are significant.

Extreme events?

How do they account for the recent decrease and/or no change in cyclone activity, tornadoes, drought and floods despite year after year of "record" temperatures?


Ocean acidification?

The ocean, for the most part, is still alkaline. A slight decrease in alkalinity does not necessarily make it acidic.

Besides there is much we don't know and not everything is a catastrophic disaster.

For example:


Unusual Coral Reef Thrives in Acidified Waters

Researchers discover sharks thriving in the scalding waters of an underwater volcano


Sea level rise?

Sea level was 20 feet higher than now during the Eemian. We should consider ourselves lucky and stop complaining.


Global temperature rise?

Warm = good. Cold = bad. Compare the diversity of life in warm areas to that of cold area. Life thrives in warmth. If a bit of extra warmth somehow causes problems then we will have to adapt like we always have.



.

The anomalies presented on any given graph and/or study are set relative to a baseline of average temperature from a chosen period. Most are 30 years but some may be longer.

Some info here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/483.htm


.

Ya, I understand what you are getting at.

And to your point about wide variances in the cause/effect of global climate - I'm not so sure that any of the experts have absolutely figured out which is which.


.

The info on that page is dated. My guess is it's an older page that they haven't updated (probably because it doesn't fit the agenda of what the current govt. admin that funds them wants put out there).

As I said earlier...the first mistake on the page is the statement that human civilization is about 7,000 years old. That has been shown to be false in the last few years. Civilizations have now been found that date back 30,000 years.

So then: Nasa is wrong, and you are right. Right?

We can't control the climate, but we already affect it, in a negative way. What we have to do is stop affecting it in the negative way. Wouldn't you agree?


I wouldn't call it simple, but ok, for the sake of argument, let's call it a simple fact. If you think that this is all about making money for green-leaning companies, then you also have to agree that being encouraged not to do anything about it from coal-leaning companies is also about making money. Wouldn't you agree?


When it comes to war, no. But when it comes to incentives, yes. Tax credits for going green is a great example.

And even if they were not doing anything about it, why shouldn't you or me? We can make choices in what we buy, how we live, etc. And if you didn't think that government was doing enough, then you can vote for greener candidates, no?

We both see reality of course - its just hard to see through the fog of misinformation sometimes, that's all.