Our weather and subsequent climate is influenced by actual natural events and not by speculative alarmist projections. Case in point the volcano that erupted on January 15 2022 in the Pacific Ocean not far from the island of Tonga. When it erupted it erupted under the ocean and instantly vaporised enough water to fill 58,000 Olympic size swimming pools and pumped it up into the atmosphere and stratosphere. https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-
I think there is a real issue that the evidence supporting human driven climate change is not understood or easily accessible for most people. The evidence needs to be understandble for non-scientists, available in places where a range of people are likely to see it, and published by sources that are widely trusted.
Yes there is a real issue that the evidence supporting human driven climate is largely based on MISINFORMATION and alarmist speculative conclusions by so called scientists ignoring scientific protocols and making inconclusive claims like, 'Chances are' 'the data SUGGESTS' and climate change scientists agree. Real scientists, when faced with an inconclusive conclusion will suggest a negative, neutral and positive conclusion, not a single speculative one.
I love this point. I mentioned last week if there was a super volcanic eruption it would reset the make up of the atmosphere and it may make these short term emissions concerns a moot point. History shows Super Volcanic eruptions have been a regular feature on earth with at least 2 in the past 100,000 years. It will reset the atmosphere. Still I am not saying this is a reason to do nothing but at the end of the day unless we learn to prevent super volcanic eruptions it is very relevant.
Moving to renewable technologies is cheaper and smarter. That it will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an added bonus. But it is a pointless waste of time to debate the reality of human induced global warming with anyone who continues to deny it.
No Australian research has been conducted in Universities, etc. for the introduction of renewables. Considering the likely negative impacts, some not yet known, we will regret this lack of diligence. Any positive effects of renewables globally are still not proven and are at least 50-100 years away so there is time for scientific research.
I am wondering how this relates to the problem of our forum of addressing in a local way the cost of transition away from oil and gas towards renewables. Can you tell me what your proposals would be on this problem?
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation