Global warmig facts, pro/for or con/against

Thank you for taken the debate I think most climate scientists has a very complex knowledge and have a high awareness of how new factors influencing the environment and nature. All research regardless of the area is dependent on the money to be able to be carried out. To claim that climate science is all about creating any imaginary disasters or doomsday prophecies to raise money sounds more like a wild guess on your part and a time out of thin air. You get that sound as if it is a kind of entertainment for the fun of it. I think it is for real. On the contrary, it is probably more important than ever that you actually paint up any future scenarios of what could potentially happen for it is they who can get us to act differently than today. Many people feel that something needs to be done. That it is running out of time. You also talk about that scientists change the data or charts to better fit their aims and objectives to get money. Contrary to what you express, the climate threat and global warming is not a question of profits for manipulation the results for get more money " in the same way as the tobacco industry or the automotive industry wanted to hide the side effects of smoking and implications from car exhaust. Today's new media opportunities and constant flow of information and news shows today's global development in real time. Researchers and filmmakers around the world showing in natural and social documentaries how new factors influence nature and global warming. It shows how wildlife affect. Climate change also affects the animal opportunities for green browsers. Drought affecting harvests. The coastal strip is lost. People are forced to flee. Instead of political refugees, will future to a much greater extent also be about environmental refugees. Research shows that industrial emissions of carbon particles spread to ice poles attract the heat and speeds up the melting of snow blankets at an alarming rate. It is good that climate scientists are trying to pull the emergency brake to while landing distance becomes shorter and shorter. The global warming is like a huge oil tanker that needs a very long braking distance in kilometres to stop. The environmental crisis exposes people to new risks and new challenges that human consciousness does not automatically draws attention to. There is no learned natural reflex to react as humans through evolution becuase it have never had to deal with today's complex and global, and slow changes, creeping changes that environmental degradation as a risk or challenge to take into consideration. Earlier social and global changes taking place for decades, but which is too slow for our consciousness to perceive or experience them immediately? The human brain has badly with references to react on these slow and insidious dangers that are taking place in the environment and nature. There is no learned deliberate or natural reflex to react to the new because mankind through evolution have never had to deal with today's complex and global, and slow changes, creeping changes and environmental degradation. People feel that something is changing in the world and it is extremely fast. The first billion humans on the planet took roughly one million years to achieve and the last billion took only 14 years. It is a population explosion that is unparalleled in the evolution. When the 7 billion people consume energy and industry to support all these people with goods and services, to respond or react to nature on this. You reason for carbon dioxide is good and useful and that it grows well. It is not just nature that responded, but also some contractors and manufacturers prefer to use green energy, solar panels become increasingly popular, wind and solar energy is more durable, and electric cars don't emit the same amount of carbon dioxide. All development has a pain threshold for what it can tolerate. When the limit is reached or exceeded begin instead a negative decomposition take shape. Man has his immune system to be able to restore and repair the imbalances in the human body. The same applies to nature's own "immune system" to recover and repair itself. Stress is also useful to a certain limit, when positive stress shifts to a negative stress. The same trend applies to how nature is affected or react to any emissions, exhaust gases from cars and industries and therefore disturb this fragile balance. It is not without reason some people express doubt that it is a planet in crisis. I don't think today's climate threats and global warming is all about the either science fiction or to paint up a jokey image of nature or the planet need to be rescued. Today we are quite clear that human intervention in nature not always so harmless, but for the people where the Earth and sea with no age. Mankind could create and form their own Kingdom in nature. Therefore, it does not damage the led. Nature was composed while human activity had a short-term process. It is in the long run if people's survival. That"s why climate change is a matter and question in the heavy weight class. This is a machine translated text. I hope it good enough to read.