Off-topic chat, page-65

Not sure how you get to listen to both sides. I've never head a denier scientist interviewed or this irrefutable data supporting, presented. The only side I have ever heard for denying has come from right wing politicians (who then get in to power and end up eating dirt) and the journalists that back them.

Why would the worlds largest companies, companies whose business models are affected negatively if climate change is real, be making statements about climate change and acting on it (at their own expense) if it was all a big hoax? Surely they would not waste their money.

https://www.bhp.com/environment/climate-change
https://www.shell.com/sustainabilit...ns/climate-change-public-policy-position.html
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html
https://www.santos.com/media/4437/climate-change-policy.pdf

And why are coal miners like Adani struggling to get money? Because banks hate making a buck? Nope

https://www.westpac.com.au/about-we...pectives/climate-change-environmental-issues/
https://www.commbank.com.au/content...CBA-Spotlight-article-Climate-Change-FY18.pdf

I could go on but you get the picture. It's not just some obscure, supposedly politically driven scientists. Industry is recognising and acting often at cost to themselves because they understand that the data is unequivocal. You even see that word in BHPs statement. It means there is no chance of error or doubt. Unequivocal. NASA says the same. They are not vacillating in any way