Balance of nature: global warming related to CO2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 11, 2025, 08:16 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I agree we do things that damage. My argument as a 'lay' weather-interested person, look at what is presented and make intelligent choices with the 'experts' presentations. See both sides clearly. Then pick one. My pick is logical.

dhw: Both views are logical if the information and the interpretation of that information are accurate. You agree that we are already causing damage to ourselves and our planet. Would you also agree that we need to take steps now to stop those interferences from increasing the damage?

Not answered.

dhw:: As regards climate change, do you agree that if your logical pick is wrong, the results of inaction now will be catastrophic for us and our planet?

Not answered.

dhw: NEWSFLASH: Last year was the hottest on record, beating the previous record set in 2023. The ten warmest days [sorry, that should have been years!] on record have all been in the last decade. Do you regard this as evidence against global warming?

DAVID: How do you know this newsflash is true??? Most of them are debunked on watts up with that.

I wrote in bold: “Laymen like us are in no position to know the truth if the so-called experts disagree among themselves.” I don’t “know” anything, but I find it hard to believe that although there are slight differences between the figures produced by the five main global datasets (including NASA and the Met Office), all five are wrong/lying/manipulating their figures. (Source: The Times). Please tell us whether Watts has rejected the statement, and if so, why he has done so.

In all my discussions with you, I am mindful of the confession you made a year ago: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” I can’t help feeling that the same principle may apply here. I myself heartily wish the threat was being “hyped”, but I find it difficult to believe that these statistics, the hard evidence (e.g. melting glaciers), and the findings by so many of our “expert” institutions are not to be taken seriously.