|
Before I ask questions just like to say I'm on the border about climate change I believe eventually it will happen we probably affect it but to a very small degree and I think change towards other power sources are unnecessary at the moment because we affect it so little by the time it becomes an issue we will have a better source of power.
Couple things I'd like to touch on A) In the past (Jurassic, Triassic periods) The earth was on Average alot hotter and Dinosaurs much likes cows and cars these days release tons of CO2 gas probably more than we do. Why would I bat an eye at our CO2 output if its been higher in the past?
B) Every year the Earth moves closer to the sun at a constant rate and the Sun has and always will be the biggest contributor to the heat of the Earth. Climate change will not happen fast if we are affecting it we will not see the results for a while anyway. Why am I not to believe the Suns patterns are the cause of the Earth's higher temperature and it is our CO2 levels which is smaller than it has been in the earth's long history?
|
On December 13 2011 09:50 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:42 dabbeljuh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 09:37 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:27 dabbeljuh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 09:22 slytown wrote:
"by burning carbon that has been accumulated over many millions of years and been stored in fossil fuels. the earth#s carbon cycle is in a fragile equilibrium, by releasing energy in an incredible fast manner, we do impact climate in an unprecedented speed. hope that helps!"
OK, I am skeptic only because I have heard the explanations and anthropological carbon-dioxide from what I understand is not a contributor to the global warming context but could (in theory) have a cooling effect globally. So, according to "skeptics" like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, and Bob Carter, the "hockey stick" theory is bunk becauase it neglects the effect temperature has on CO2 levels, not the other way around. Also, and the more important point, the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles.
Do you agree with these effects or is CO2 still the culprit? It is proven beyond doubt that increasing Co2 concentration will increase temperature. It is also proven beyond doubt that a warmer Earth has a warmer ocean that can carry less (!) CO2. So, thought experiment: Orbital changes induce temperature change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. This has happened in the past and explains that in these plots in some periods, CO2 leads temperature. This does not invalidate the current problem: Human induced CO2 change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. Concerning your " the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles" What you mean is the argument that solar rays excite cloud formation and that sun activity influences global SAT. Direct measurementas (satellite) show however, that global temperature and sun activity are NOT correlated, they point in different directions even for the last 35 years. I refer you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm for more infos. Graphs don't scare me. Where is the evidence that CO2 is the culprit? That's the issue here with the "global warming scare." I'm not saying I'm an idealogue, but i want DIRECT CORRELATION between every rise in temperature of recent with CO2 levels. A bigger question is is that even possible? Sorry, I'm no a climate scientist so I am unfamiliar with all the terminology. Great thread by the way dabbelijuh. it is not possible to show this direct correlation for single anomalies, only for the global trend.. think of a pot of water on a cooker: you will not be able to correlate the bubbles in the water with small fluctuations of the cooker itself. you will be reasonably sure, though, that the warming of the water is due to the cooker. now think of earth as that pot but + many strange effects that shake the pot, put ice in it, activate the cooker irregularly, lift and drop the pot from time to time. the result will be a chaotic evolution wheren you _CANNOT_ directly correlate cooker and pot temperature, but the causal effect is still there. I would much appreciate if things would be easier (and beware of people who it is, it is not. Earth is one of the most complex systems mankind has ever tried to describe. ). And please, ignore the graph, look at my thought experiment  EDIT: and no reason to excuse yourself because your not a climate scientist, sometimes I wish I wouldnt be one Lulz. Don't wish that. At least you have work in your field. It's hard to get work in my field of history. Anyway, my issue is you say there can't be a direct correlation, only something like a 95% effect from CO2, but that's not the question. 100% or 95%, where is the evidence that the CO2 is what's causing the temperature rise?The IPCC has suppossedly misrepresented the scientists that submitted their findings on the subject and falsely claims the number of academics who support the anthropological theory.
I believe the OP has plenty of evidence that this is the case.
First off C02 has been increasing and is anthropogenic in nature
see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/the carbon cycle has been in equilibrium for millenia. now we emit a lot of co2. if you do the math and add all sources and all sinks of co2 you will see that at the moment we are in a plus that leads to the increase in concentration. this increase matches athropogenic co2 exactly.
Secondly C02 is a greenhouse gas which raises the temperature
Wikipedia on Green House Gas.
Here is the OPs quote on this
It is proven beyond doubt that increasing Co2 concentration will increase temperature.
It is also proven beyond doubt that a warmer Earth has a warmer ocean that can carry less (!) CO2.
So, thought experiment:
Orbital changes induce temperature change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth.
This has happened in the past and explains that in these plots in some periods, CO2 leads temperature.
This does not invalidate the current problem:
Human induced CO2 change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth.
Also when pressed on whether C02 is the culprit he writes
it is not possible to show this direct correlation for single anomalies, only for the global trend..
think of a pot of water on a cooker: you will not be able to correlate the bubbles in the water with small fluctuations of the cooker itself. you will be reasonably sure, though, that the warming of the water is due to the cooker.
now think of earth as that pot but + many strange effects that shake the pot, put ice in it, activate the cooker irregularly, lift and drop the pot from time to time.
the result will be a chaotic evolution wheren you _CANNOT_ directly correlate cooker and pot temperature, but the causal effect is still there.
Finally if this is not sufficient here is a link that explains the link between C02 and temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
|
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
The point of this thread is not to change the minds of climate deniers, but to help inform the people who do not have the knowledge nor capability to gather the knowledge and therefore depend on the media to get their opinion. He is trying to take their questions and answer them in a scientific way as to keep them from blindly believing what the media puts out.
|
On December 13 2011 09:50 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:42 dabbeljuh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 09:37 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:27 dabbeljuh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 09:22 slytown wrote:
"by burning carbon that has been accumulated over many millions of years and been stored in fossil fuels. the earth#s carbon cycle is in a fragile equilibrium, by releasing energy in an incredible fast manner, we do impact climate in an unprecedented speed. hope that helps!"
OK, I am skeptic only because I have heard the explanations and anthropological carbon-dioxide from what I understand is not a contributor to the global warming context but could (in theory) have a cooling effect globally. So, according to "skeptics" like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, and Bob Carter, the "hockey stick" theory is bunk becauase it neglects the effect temperature has on CO2 levels, not the other way around. Also, and the more important point, the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles.
Do you agree with these effects or is CO2 still the culprit? It is proven beyond doubt that increasing Co2 concentration will increase temperature. It is also proven beyond doubt that a warmer Earth has a warmer ocean that can carry less (!) CO2. So, thought experiment: Orbital changes induce temperature change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. This has happened in the past and explains that in these plots in some periods, CO2 leads temperature. This does not invalidate the current problem: Human induced CO2 change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. Concerning your " the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles" What you mean is the argument that solar rays excite cloud formation and that sun activity influences global SAT. Direct measurementas (satellite) show however, that global temperature and sun activity are NOT correlated, they point in different directions even for the last 35 years. I refer you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm for more infos. Graphs don't scare me. Where is the evidence that CO2 is the culprit? That's the issue here with the "global warming scare." I'm not saying I'm an idealogue, but i want DIRECT CORRELATION between every rise in temperature of recent with CO2 levels. A bigger question is is that even possible? Sorry, I'm no a climate scientist so I am unfamiliar with all the terminology. Great thread by the way dabbelijuh. it is not possible to show this direct correlation for single anomalies, only for the global trend.. think of a pot of water on a cooker: you will not be able to correlate the bubbles in the water with small fluctuations of the cooker itself. you will be reasonably sure, though, that the warming of the water is due to the cooker. now think of earth as that pot but + many strange effects that shake the pot, put ice in it, activate the cooker irregularly, lift and drop the pot from time to time. the result will be a chaotic evolution wheren you _CANNOT_ directly correlate cooker and pot temperature, but the causal effect is still there. I would much appreciate if things would be easier (and beware of people who it is, it is not. Earth is one of the most complex systems mankind has ever tried to describe. ). And please, ignore the graph, look at my thought experiment EDIT: and no reason to excuse yourself because your not a climate scientist, sometimes I wish I wouldnt be one Lulz. Don't wish that. At least you have work in your field. It's hard to get work in my field of history. Anyway, my issue is you say there can't be a direct correlation, only something like a 95% effect from CO2, but that's not the question. 100% or 95%, where is the evidence that the CO2 is what's causing the temperature rise? The IPCC has suppossedly misrepresented the scientists that submitted their findings on the subject and falsely claims the number of academics who support the anthropological theory.
I think it depends what you mean by "causing." Greenhouse gases have been demonstrated to increase temperature. The physics of this is well understood and you can find it in many places. However, for global trends, we have to consider a lot of factors, including greenhouse gases, sollar activity, solar rays etc. Historic evidence supports the idea that greenhouse gases are part of large and important cycles that affect global temperature. It's not the only thing, but it's a big factor that appears to be a strong explanatory factor for the current rise in temperatures.
|
So here's a carbon-related question... Is there a carbon waste that doesn't react with oxygen/turn into CO2, or doesn't enter the atmosphere or w.e
And how plausible is it to have solar panels that operate on the principle of photosynthesis rather than germanium oxide, or whatever is currently used in solar plants? Because it'd be nice if we could drain CO2 out of the air to create energy (even if it's stored in sugar,) as long as we can then release this energy without it returning back into the atmosphere...
Of course we can just plant more stuff, but that requires a ton of maintanence.
|
I have two questions: (hope they haven't been asked yet)
1. How do you know that the rising CO2 levels that we have measured (I want to emphasis this part) are not simply a "lagging indicator" as has been posited by some scientists?
2. How do you respond to the fact that there have been warmer and more CO2 rich times in our worlds history, and that these resulted in a flourishing of life (dinosaurs)?
|
On December 13 2011 10:10 CajunMan wrote:
Before I ask questions just like to say I'm on the border about climate change I believe eventually it will happen we probably affect it but to a very small degree and I think change towards other power sources are unnecessary at the moment because we affect it so little by the time it becomes an issue we will have a better source of power.
Couple things I'd like to touch on A) In the past (Jurassic, Triassic periods) The earth was on Average alot hotter and Dinosaurs much likes cows and cars these days release tons of CO2 gas probably more than we do. Why would I bat an eye at our CO2 output if its been higher in the past?
B) Every year the Earth moves closer to the sun at a constant rate and the Sun has and always will be the biggest contributor to the heat of the Earth. Climate change will not happen fast if we are affecting it we will not see the results for a while anyway. Why am I not to believe the Suns patterns are the cause of the Earth's higher temperature and it is our CO2 levels which is smaller than it has been in the earth's long history?
Global temperature is changing fairly rapidly in recent history. You're right about solar activity being an important factor in global temperatures. But it's not the only one. And it's been accounted for pretty well. The rapid increase in recent times appears to be the effect of additional greenhouse gases. This plays into other feedback mechanisms as the OP has explained. You're right that history has had much larger CO2 content. But we're not dinosaurs. Here is a summary of some of the effects predicted if trends continue: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Decreased supply of freshwater in some areas, increase in cyclone/tornadoes, and more frequent temperature extremes. The sun's activity doesn't account for the change that is currently seen and the effects are not pleasant at all.
|
On December 13 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
I have two questions: (hope they haven't been asked yet)
1. How do you know that the rising CO2 levels that we have measured (I want to emphasis this part) are not simply a "lagging indicator" as has been posited by some scientists?
2. How do you respond to the fact that there have been warmer and more CO2 rich times in our worlds history, and that these resulted in a flourishing of life (dinosaurs)?
I believe SkepticalScience explains it best
C02 lags temperature?
In shortOver the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
It goes into real detail at both a basic and intermediate level. This includes the actual data. Have a read and if anything doesn't make sense, post it here.
|
In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.
Okay, let's say that's what it is. What causes the stop? If it is both the cause and effect, than it should continue along it's track, right? Especially because as it gets hotter, more CO2 is released, causing more heat, causing an even greater release. The growth in warming should be exponential!
Or so it seems to me...
|
On December 13 2011 10:23 Kiarip wrote:
So here's a carbon-related question... Is there a carbon waste that doesn't react with oxygen/turn into CO2, or doesn't enter the atmosphere or w.e
And how plausible is it to have solar panels that operate on the principle of photosynthesis rather than germanium oxide, or whatever is currently used in solar plants? Because it'd be nice if we could drain CO2 out of the air to create energy (even if it's stored in sugar,) as long as we can then release this energy without it returning back into the atmosphere...
Of course we can just plant more stuff, but that requires a ton of maintanence.
Biochar is something that has the potential to capture carbon and be useful for mainting soil nutrients. In essence it is burning carbon via pyrolisis which is partial combustion (low oxygen content) and then using the left over ash as fertilizer. This provides energy through combustion (pyrolisis) and a source of fertilizer. BioChar is highly concentrated carbon and adds nutrients to agricultural land. In addition if used regularly it can be permanently stored in the soil, thus acting as a carbon sink.
This is just one type of carbon storage being researched. Not sure about organic solar cells, I would imagine there is reaserch ongoing in this area. If for no other reason than working out exactly how engineer photsynthesis would be a boon for agriculture.
|
On December 13 2011 10:44 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. Okay, let's say that's what it is. What causes the stop? If it is both the cause and effect, than it should continue along it's track, right? Especially because as it gets hotter, more CO2 is released, causing more heat, causing an even greater release. The growth in warming should be exponential! Or so it seems to me...
This would be true if C02 was the only thing influencing climate. As has been noted other factors are involved. For example on the same page
The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag (thanks to John Mashey for the tip).
Orbital changes do influence the climate, it is just that the current warming is not due to this. We are putting the globe out of its normal cycle and that is the danger. Can you clarify yourself a little. Are you asking why the globe hasn't experience runaway C02 and corresponding temperature increases before?
|
Just out of curiosity, why is it bad if people are in the wrong on this subject. For the most part, to my knowledge, public perception of this issue is largely unimportant as most politicians receive funding from one side or the other. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to persuade the politicians themselves, rather than yelling at idiots on the internet. (I was happy to see the latin plural of forum :D)
|
On December 13 2011 10:49 Mordanis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why is it bad if people are in the wrong on this subject. For the most part, to my knowledge, public perception of this issue is largely unimportant as most politicians receive funding from one side or the other. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to persuade the politicians themselves, rather than yelling at idiots on the internet. (I was happy to see the latin plural of forum :D)
Because politicians want to at least appear like they give a crap about popular demand in order to increase their numbers. Moreover, there is a disconnect between science that goes on in academia and the public. This is exacerbated by the media constantly botching and misrepresenting scientific matters. I think the reason why it's important to talk about scientific matters not from a political standpoint, but a scientific one can be summarized by this Sagan quote:
"We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster."
|
On December 13 2011 10:49 Mordanis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why is it bad if people are in the wrong on this subject. For the most part, to my knowledge, public perception of this issue is largely unimportant as most politicians receive funding from one side or the other. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to persuade the politicians themselves, rather than yelling at idiots on the internet. (I was happy to see the latin plural of forum :D)
How exactly does one pursuade politicians to do anything? You get their constituents' panties in a knot. If it is a big enough issue for the people that vote for them, then it is a big enough issue for them. Of course it would be easier if there was enough money in Climate Science to simply buy off politicians. That doesn't make it so, or right.
Fact is nothing will happen until there is a push from the general public. That starts with correcting incorrectly held views. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, unless you ignore the evidence that you are wrong.
Edit: All hail the sneaky ninja...
|
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
|
On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress. Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
What makes you think it's not falsifiable or analyzed correctly? Climate scientists do not deny the effects of the sun's activity on global temperatures. What makes you think that? There is a ton of work done on udnerstanding this very fact. For instance, a summary:
http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E_S2004/climate change/climate_change_2001_tech_summary.pdf
|
On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress. Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem.
But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly
It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient.
The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas
The effect is not minimal. See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
Not tue. Please see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail.
Finally
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics?
|
This thread is excellent. Reminds me of the various Holocaust revisionism debunking threads over at the Axis History Forums (I think that was the site, not sure any more).
|
Wait, you are asking me to (pretend to) be a skeptic? Sorry no can do. 
I think the evidence is pretty convincing, and most of the counter-arguments are from small-time academics at less-renowned institutions. Furthermore, at a cost of around 2% of global GDP (not insignificant, but I think we can afford that) we can avoid the uncertainty of potential disastrous scenarios which will cost us multiples of that sum (I once heard a figure of 20% Global GDP, plus endless suffering that's not quantifiable).
|
I don't actually agree that the general public's opinion on any given issue has a great effect on politicians' decisions. The "99%" is not actually anything around a majority ( at least in America), but they get a lot of attention because they make a lot of uproar. I don't think that making people change their mind about climate change will actually influence policy. I think you need to get a lot of vigorous supporters to make a big stink during election time. If you try to make some people change their mind without saying anything to anyone it will change nothing. I think that if you want change you should try to get in personal contact with some politician at whatever level you can. A good conversation is much more effective than anonymous, silent, change in opinion.
PS I am friends with someone who works in politics, so I'm probably more familiar with this than most people, but if you have actually worked in the politics of this subject, I could totally be wrong. This is all just my educated opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
