3 ms·
Your cited source is a nypost article? The debate happened decades ago in academia. It is "settled science" as much as science can be "settled". Here's a slig
by invalidname 3y ago
Your cited source is a nypost article?
The debate happened decades ago in academia. It is "settled science" as much as science can be "settled".
Here's a slightly better popular science source explaining this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-...
- lotsoweiners 3y agoNot agreeing with the parent comment but if half the country still wants to debate this issue then it seems like it is too political. Climate change has been one of the democrats top issues for decades. Is there any climate change could not be a political issue?
- invalidname 3y agoI wish but unlikely. Debate in the general public doesn't convince people who've been fed misinformation for decades. People who are still getting this misinformation daily. Fox was exposed as a liar in court documents. Yet people still cite them as "truthful" vs. sources like CNN (who to be fair, aren't great). The problem is in lobbying and politicians. This would have no impact if politicians had a slight bit of a spine. They know the facts well and just don't care. The natural disasters that are hitting people in the face might solve this problem. Politicians are finally coming face to face with the results of their actions.