Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
I agree that most of what is presented to us is extremely biased, to a point. If people only look at headlines and tweets then I could understand why people think it’s getting blown out of proportion. The actual data is pretty convincing though.I never said that neither side isn't presenting "science" in a way that would further their agenda, they most certainly are. I also didn't say humans had 0 impact on climate; surface level or atmospheric. We do impact it. At atmospheric level human contribution is no different than any other species at another time in geologic history. Pollution on the surface is a different story but doesn't fully overlap with greenhouse gasses the way it's presented. To be clear though, I'm not saying that surface level pollution doesn't exist.
The sad fact is that the majority of the public has been presented biased science used to push a agenda or narrative on climate change by both sides. With my profession as an environmental chemist who is fairly in depth with all of this I get presented with unbiased findings. The actual science lies in the middle of what's presented to the public.
Of course we as intelligent inhabitants of earth should do what we can to protect the earth and transition to ways of less pollution. I'm just trying to present that these global atmospheric temps are considered normal. It's not going to be all doom, gloom and we'll all be burning on fireball earth if it's not done in the next few years.
Outside of something catastrophic landing on us from outer space, humans will certainly be their own undoing.
And the longer we wait to alter our trajectory, the more stringent the restrictions will have to be to get us back on track.
I have two little girls and I honestly believe the planet is going to be pretty gross by the time they are my age.