Sometimes when I read discussions on the issue of climate change, I feel like I'm not entirely sure what people believe.
I'm not sure why there is a focus on belief at all.
1. What data do you believe to be true about temperature change in the last 100 years and why? Provide links to primary sources of data if possible.
Not sure what this means. I think most temperature data has been recorded in good faith. I think most micro studies have data they honestly collected.
There's some questions about adjustments to the data.
2. What narrative do you have for the cause of any such temperature change? Provide links to any public figures whose narratives and justifications you think are basically accurate.
So not about the data, but rather about the conclusions. I'm not going to lie, I don't trust the conclusions, and especially the predictions. In my view they have repeatedly overstated the case.
I don't trust the conclusion that human caused carbon is the only relevant factor to any increase in temperature.
That said, as far as "narrative" I don't have one I subscribe to, and I have no reason to dispute either that warming occurs or that carbon contributes to it. I guess my narrative would be to stop trying to use science that someone poorly understands as a hammer to implement policies that wouldn't even address the issues.
3. What actions do you believe we should take collectively on the federal level, if any, in response to your views on #1 and #2? Why do you think these actions will have a net positive impact?
Generally I'm pro-green and an anti-waste. Those seem like beneficial policies for a host of reasons, even if they don't necessarily impact climate change.
On the federal level we should immediately impose tariffs on goods produced in countries that don't have an equal level of environmental laws to our own. Our official policy should be to put polluters out of business by supporting the cleanest operations capable of producing the goods in question.
We should continue to refine and adjust our own environmental laws, but we seriously need to bring back the
legally required economic impact analysis is a fair way (and not just, the way the radicals at the EPA do it where any environmental harm = infinite on the balance).
4. What actions do you believe we should take collectively on the state level, if any, in response to your views on #1 and #2? Why do you think these actions will have a net positive impact?
Federal government should generally pre-empt the states on this. Though land use and zoning support could be helpful, most state actions are actually disruptive and/or self interested.
5. What actions do you believe we should each take on an individual level, if any, in response to your views on #1 and #2? Why do you think these actions will have a net positive impact?
We should stop supporting fake solutions and demand real ones.