Think about it...think Equilibrium
Equilibrium, baloney. The question was, "How does one know if the sea is rising or the land is settling?' I don't know the answer and I haven't heard a convincing explanation here. I don't believe for a New York minute that the resolution of satellite measurements are up to the power of -11, much less on water that is always moving. Simply saying so doesn't convince me.
The question of whether the climate is changing is also full of fallacious arguments. It's changing as it always has. Whether it is warming or cooling is arguable because the
supposed warming trend may have turned a corner about 2008 and we may now be headed for cooling. Mankind does effect the environment on the surface of the earth, for some good, and for some ill. The sources of surface pollution have changed greatly and the western world is cleaner and getting cleaner while the third world is now the source of more and increasing pollution. Burdening the west with the onus to compensate for the east is unacceptable to the west. The US has reduced CO2 more than the other countries still in the so-called Paris Agreement.
The climate disagreement is about carbon, especially CO2. The people advocating carbon neutral living at any cost are doing so on the premise that it is possible to feed and warm and employ mankind without fossil fuels within the foreseeable future. Not gonna happen. Not possible maybe ever, but certainly not possible without nuclear power as the universal supplier. Not many for that because the wastes have to go somewhere and "Not in my backyard" gets in the way there. Fission sounds good, but who knows when that will become practical? The free market economies are the only real source of efficiencies to improve our processes to supply mankind's needs, as already proven. Merely banning this or that and mandating that people operate as though the solutions to supplying our needs before the solutions have been arrived at won't work. Look at California. Mandating electric cars by some date certain at the same time they are having brown-outs. They can't support the need for electricity now, the grid doesn't work well enough to not cause fires, but they're going to have 15 million electric cars charging overnight in addition to heating and cooling homes and running businesses? They're closing in on broke now and will need to re-create the electric grid for the whole state by 2035? Sure.
Us practical types look at your windmills knocking birds out of the air, -when they're running, and frying birds in mid-air over your solar farms, -when the sun is shinning, and we see some flaws in your system. Sooner or later your wildlife greenies will be arguing with your power greenies and you'll have to make adjustments in your philosophy.
CO2 has been much higher in geological history and life has flourished.
So, let's stick to arguing about how changes can be made to the satisfaction of mankind's needs, kind of like the way we changed transportation from horses dumping tons of manure in the city streets to now, and maybe on our way to electric cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. If that happens, it will be a feat of industry, not politics.
Effectively, the last decade or so, science seems to have become a political toy in some countries. Not a good situation.
