“”For the climate sceptics amongst us just read this:https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/It’s NASA, is that an impeccable enough source?The climate research teams at Exeter Uni, who work closely with the Met Office, based not coincidentally in Exeter, can provide much more detailed research, peer reviewed of course and supported by well over 90% of climate scientists worldwide.At this stage in the debate we really shouldn’t have to be going back to basics to point out what is happening to the Earth’s climate.How we, humankind, respond, is of course very much open to debate but if it does not include reducing CO2 emissions globally and rapidly, then what, exactly? Methane is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and those emissions, too, need drastic reduction.If you don't believe any of this then that puts you at odds with 90%+ of the world's climate scientists, including those at NASA. Science matters. Google it but do choose sites with some scientific heft and not just those that offer uninformed scepticism.””I posted the above yesterday on another thread but here it is again just in case. I know you didn’t specifically ask me what I’m doing about it but for all of us the key word is “mitigation”. Each of us can make a tiny difference at most but collectively we can achieve far more. However it’s no use talking about mitigation unless you start from the position that humankind has a serious, indeed, existential problem, and that urgent action is required. Here’s another link I recommend a sceptic should read: https://www.theccc.org.uk/climate-action/international-action-on-climate-change/If you do read it then also take a look at the very long list of serious international academic experts on the committee. That’s scientific heft for you. What we do individually, or as a country, will not be cost free. Indeed it could be financially quite painful. When considering that point consider also the potential cost of doing nothing. Your call.
Jonathan Callaway ● 19d