I am of course being a bit sarcastic. I do not "believe" in anything unless there is evidence for it. And certainly not because of political convenience as you Trump comments suggest, nor am I willing to join a side to show "the others" how many support the glorious cause. So far it seems like mixed results. Temperatures are rising, but much less than before. Increases in tornadoes and storms are nonexistent, droughts local at best, sea level rises about as slowly as one would expect. I am being told agriculture will collapse, but also that yields are increasing significantly. Turns out fires had barely anything to do with global climate. You can come up with models and predictions that were right. And a lot that were horribly wrong. I am not confident that we can predict the future. I was told the government needs to restrict ownership rights to prepare for climate droughts, then we had an exceptionally wet year and that debate simply died. Not because data changed, but because nobody would hear the predictions anymore. Economically, even the UN panel admits that damage caused by solutions would be greater than the benefit of decreasing warming. So unless we are literally approaching end times, solutions proposed are the wrong way to go. So far the scientists failed to convince me of the certainty of end times, so there we go. People push renewables but refuse to even admit the need for nuclear, making it sound like they themselves don't believe there is a crisis. And solutions that do not involve great tyranny are few and far between. People who push warming are biased, like to exaggerate and abuse data, those who oppose them are sometimes wrong and make things up. Those who promote crisis then end up buying seaside property and oil company stocks, showing what they think the future will bring.
So far I would say there are reasons for concern, but the expected damage is vastly exaggerated and solutions often will do more harm than good. I have my mind open to being convinced either way, but I do not believe by default. That is similar to atheism, absence of evidence necessitates the return to a default "no" until proven otherwise. So I am an "Aclimatist" let's say. So far it's a clear no to climate fears, but that could change any minute, and I do see evidence pointing towards a problem.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
89Opinion
No, I am an atheist.
What?
I am of course being a bit sarcastic. I do not "believe" in anything unless there is evidence for it. And certainly not because of political convenience as you Trump comments suggest, nor am I willing to join a side to show "the others" how many support the glorious cause.
So far it seems like mixed results. Temperatures are rising, but much less than before. Increases in tornadoes and storms are nonexistent, droughts local at best, sea level rises about as slowly as one would expect. I am being told agriculture will collapse, but also that yields are increasing significantly.
Turns out fires had barely anything to do with global climate.
You can come up with models and predictions that were right. And a lot that were horribly wrong. I am not confident that we can predict the future.
I was told the government needs to restrict ownership rights to prepare for climate droughts, then we had an exceptionally wet year and that debate simply died. Not because data changed, but because nobody would hear the predictions anymore.
Economically, even the UN panel admits that damage caused by solutions would be greater than the benefit of decreasing warming. So unless we are literally approaching end times, solutions proposed are the wrong way to go. So far the scientists failed to convince me of the certainty of end times, so there we go.
People push renewables but refuse to even admit the need for nuclear, making it sound like they themselves don't believe there is a crisis.
And solutions that do not involve great tyranny are few and far between.
People who push warming are biased, like to exaggerate and abuse data, those who oppose them are sometimes wrong and make things up.
Those who promote crisis then end up buying seaside property and oil company stocks, showing what they think the future will bring.
So far I would say there are reasons for concern, but the expected damage is vastly exaggerated and solutions often will do more harm than good.
I have my mind open to being convinced either way, but I do not believe by default. That is similar to atheism, absence of evidence necessitates the return to a default "no" until proven otherwise.
So I am an "Aclimatist" let's say. So far it's a clear no to climate fears, but that could change any minute, and I do see evidence pointing towards a problem.
Troll
Yes it is changing.
I am so sorry you are an idiot.
Yup...
Another clown
Trump will not be 2024
Yes.
Without a doubt
No i dont