Seeing I was banned from the recent climate change threads below, as usual, I thought I’d respond to them with my own thread addressing the topic
All these exchanges on climate change are always the same, flat earthers always find some obscure theory or individual somewhere on the Internet and presented his or her’s theory as some game changer invalidating the consensus view of actual climate scientists. It is all part of an effort to create a false paradigm, usually one if you trace it back far enough you’ll see it originates from some energy industry funding source
And of course you’ll be the deniers who will try to tell you they know what they are talking about cause they have some sophomoric understanding of the semantics involved, or, remember how it supposedly related to something they leaned in high school. This is usually followed up with the “then show us how it is wrong”
So, I’ll go with NASA’s view, figure anyone who can put a man on the moon, land on a moving asteroid, and operate with applied science over some obscure “authority” found on the Internet
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
https://climate.nasa.gov/extreme-weather/
All these exchanges on climate change are always the same, flat earthers always find some obscure theory or individual somewhere on the Internet and presented his or her’s theory as some game changer invalidating the consensus view of actual climate scientists. It is all part of an effort to create a false paradigm, usually one if you trace it back far enough you’ll see it originates from some energy industry funding source
And of course you’ll be the deniers who will try to tell you they know what they are talking about cause they have some sophomoric understanding of the semantics involved, or, remember how it supposedly related to something they leaned in high school. This is usually followed up with the “then show us how it is wrong”
So, I’ll go with NASA’s view, figure anyone who can put a man on the moon, land on a moving asteroid, and operate with applied science over some obscure “authority” found on the Internet
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
https://climate.nasa.gov/extreme-weather/