Our weather and subsequent climate is influenced by actual natural events and not by speculative alarmist projections. Case in point the volcano that erupted on January 15 2022 in the Pacific Ocean not far from the island of Tonga. When it erupted it erupted under the ocean and instantly vaporised enough water to fill 58,000 Olympic size swimming pools and pumped it up into the atmosphere and stratosphere. https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-
Yes there is a real issue that the evidence supporting human driven climate is largely based on MISINFORMATION and alarmist speculative conclusions by so called scientists ignoring scientific protocols and making inconclusive claims like, 'Chances are' 'the data SUGGESTS' and climate change scientists agree. Real scientists, when faced with an inconclusive conclusion will suggest a negative, neutral and positive conclusion, not a single speculative one.
I think there is a real issue that the evidence supporting human driven climate change is not understood or easily accessible for most people. The evidence needs to be understandble for non-scientists, available in places where a range of people are likely to see it, and published by sources that are widely trusted.
I am wondering how this relates to the problem of our forum of addressing in a local way the cost of transition away from oil and gas towards renewables. Can you tell me what your proposals would be on this problem?
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation