> and I don't think the science on this is set at all.
It absolutely is.
There are also a number of denialist blogs funded by Heritage Foundation et al that spend a great deal of effort confusing people and putting out the false message that the science isn't set.
I spent two decades in exploration geophysics mapping global mineral and energy resources for major resource companies. I also spent some time on a global scale volumetric "spreadsheet" application (ERMapper) for stitching raw data, mosaicing sat imagery, performing earth scale magnetic, gravitational, radiometric, et al computations.
What is your background in earth sciences?
> to be honest I think there's a lot of weird political games going on.
More driven by corporate lobbyists than political positions.
Those onside with large corporate entities want to either ignore climate action or to support ineffective policy (of which there are many shades) - CO2 credits are ripe for abuse, companies can continue emmitting in exchange for kicking small sums towards ineffective programs (planting trees cut down last year, sequesting a tiny amount of carbon down boreholes that are extracting vast amounts, etc).
There are also many people that feel overwhelmed and will back bad policy because they want to do something, anything, and either don't recognise bad policy for what it is or feel that any action is better than no action.
It absolutely is.
There are also a number of denialist blogs funded by Heritage Foundation et al that spend a great deal of effort confusing people and putting out the false message that the science isn't set.
I spent two decades in exploration geophysics mapping global mineral and energy resources for major resource companies. I also spent some time on a global scale volumetric "spreadsheet" application (ERMapper) for stitching raw data, mosaicing sat imagery, performing earth scale magnetic, gravitational, radiometric, et al computations.
What is your background in earth sciences?
> to be honest I think there's a lot of weird political games going on.
More driven by corporate lobbyists than political positions.
Those onside with large corporate entities want to either ignore climate action or to support ineffective policy (of which there are many shades) - CO2 credits are ripe for abuse, companies can continue emmitting in exchange for kicking small sums towards ineffective programs (planting trees cut down last year, sequesting a tiny amount of carbon down boreholes that are extracting vast amounts, etc).
There are also many people that feel overwhelmed and will back bad policy because they want to do something, anything, and either don't recognise bad policy for what it is or feel that any action is better than no action.