Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think more than half would admit humans cause some climate change

it's the "how much" that is the question

Angels on a pin head.

So many tons doesn't mean anything to me without some kind of comparison.  The average US car emits about 4-5 tons per year.

At a cruising speed of 780 km per hour, this is equivalent to 90 kg CO2 per passenger per hour (737).

Sure, I just think one needs some kind of point of reference.  It's like saying the nearest star is 4.3 light years away, it has not obvious context for us where distances are generally tens of miles, or hundreds, or even thousands, our minds don't relate to light years, one of which is nearly 6 trillion miles, which against doesn't compute.

"We" generated about 37 gigatons of CO2 last year.  What does that mean?  Sounds like a lot.  Of more relevance is that the amount continues to increase after a COVID related drop, and will continue in years to come to increase.

It is, for one year, but over a decade it starts to count, and the trend is what's important.  "We" should be heading down, if even slightly, and we're not, and we're not going to be any time soon (barring another COVID or economic melt down).  These various goals are being missed and are going to be missed.

A lot of things can "seem" this way or that of course.  An increase of that size in reality CAN be either significant and meaningul or irrelevant.

I don't base my thoughts on what seems to be if I can base them on something of sturdier foundations.

The science of this is quite a bit more involved and "sturdy" than that, in my view, it's also quite complex.  I personally am persuaded by the "science" that the increase is meaningful.  I am quite a bit less confident in the models.  The complexity of the models is such that, in my experience, they are simply various "line fits" to past measurements and not necessarily predictive of the future.

The story here, one of, is how most on the right dispute the findings, and most on the left accept them, and most of either have done more than reading their own confirmation bias summaries of it all.  Ergo, their opinions are based on their politics, not the science.  This is not unusual of course.  If a person WANTS to believe a certain way they can find justification for that somewhere.  Reading a lot about it with an open mind and trying to discern what is mostly likely real is a LOT more work, almost impossible really.