I have yet to see someone put forth a valid argument against climate change, especially since the "pause" didn't really happen.
@gabbykman with you on this, I actually don't even know much about the other side since I figured it was undisputed.
I'm not a denier but I have seen facts. And it turns out that people who tried to debunk the "pause" you're talking about used manipulated data to try and prove it didn't happen...
When large parts of the united states are under water then they will believe.
Considering the fact that wikileaks among other have shown that data is being purposefully manipulated to show climate change is happening doesn't help your side gain credibility.I can point out Ivar Giaever who won the Nobel prize in physics has lectured extensively on how its bullshit and the data is being manipulated.However, I prefer to take a different tack. Everyone agrees climate changes naturally to some extent. Before industrialisation there were large swings in climate. There was an ice age 10,000 years ago. Before that temperatures were at certain points far higher than they are now. Let's assume we create a carbon neutral society. What's your plan to tackle the naturally occurring climate change? Do you know or have any interest in why the climate changes naturally?
@bubba I find your point interesting, have you watched 'Before the flood'?I mean, even that could be manipulated data but just wanted to know whether you have watched it and your thoughts on it.And I think , the major advantage of a carbon neutral society would be that we would have more time before the climate changes kick in hard enough. I sincerely don't think we can prevent the climate changes occurring naturally, the best option would be to postpone it (at least not to aggravate and prepone it) and a carbon free society would address it directly.
@tyler_durden I have never seen "Before the flood".
Climate change is a tautology.
It's not about whether it is happening. It's about whether humans have caused it and/or can reverse it.