Think there needs to be a distinction made between natural severe and sudden cyclical climate change that can and will happen in periods of thousands of years, and the scientific concensus that the driving factor of the current issue is anthropogenic.
For example ozone depletion is partly caused by natural phenomena, but it's clear that human causal and preventative action is the biggest factor in how it is managed. It's just easier for us to focus on a hole in a fixed spot and fear being melted by the sun than it us to see the bigger impact of what a rise in a few degrees means over a few decades.
For example ozone depletion is partly caused by natural phenomena, but it's clear that human causal and preventative action is the biggest factor in how it is managed. It's just easier for us to focus on a hole in a fixed spot and fear being melted by the sun than it us to see the bigger impact of what a rise in a few degrees means over a few decades.
And that "scientific consensus" is bullshit promoted by politicians, journalists, government authorities and influencers-environmentalists. There are more than two thousands scientists who oppose the reasons or if climate change should be called crisis.
I don't claim any of the sides is absolutely right or wrong. I just want to have opposite arguments and discussion.
Somehow closing the cow farms in Nederland, Denmark, UK etc. doesn't appear to me like right solution for stopping the climate change!
Buy on AliExpress.com