24
« on: June 01, 2023, 09:58:07 AM »
Alright, I'll respond for poor Ceejay's sake. Y'all are keeping it entertaining, but poking him just to poke ain't very nice.
I don't claim to know much about anything. And even less about this post. (4 days and 4 pages. I've lost the plot a little). I am somebody you would probably consider "on the right," though I don't actually play for one of the teams and disagree with most of their decisions. Maybe I'm the exception, but I don't think so. John, you said denial/mockery of climate change is based on being against government control, and I think you're right there. For real people (as opposed to the media), it's a question of how much warming, how catastrophic that warming is, what role humans play in it, and what the reaction to it should be. There is real fear of more government control and interference. To me, that fear is totally legitimate. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I for one do not want more government in any area I can think of. I've got a rock solid belief that government screws up everything it touches.
But before I draw myself off, in my reading, ya'll haven't actually touched anything that hits those points at which we actually disagree. I agree with a lot of what you said in that last post, without any real struggle. Truthfully, I don't have a lot to add, just felt you'd earned a response from the "other side."
I did wonder from the Exxon chart (your climate files link). Bottom right shows Exxon's estimate of temp change stretching back 150k years overlaid in red with "simulated change". Any thoughts on the disparity between the pre"today" temps? Advances in core drilling and interpreting maybe? Or just years of additional sampling maybe? ... Not really an argument for or against anything, just interesting.