It is a complicated discussion, hehe.

I think the biggest problem here in the USA is that the collectivist segment of our government likes to use the EPA and the BLM to pursue political goals, and that actually protecting the environment comes in a very distant second.

For example, the EPA has far reaching powers over "waters in the US", which includes temporary basins that only form during heavy rains (puddles). The politicians use this power to reward those who give them money, and punish those who do not. For example, an oil fracking company who has made large campaign contributions to a politician is allowed to leave ponds of toxic fracking waste just sitting there. While at the same time, if there is a hard rain and a little bit of cow manure is washed into the river, a small farmer can be fined tens of thousands of dollars, enough to put them out of business. It becomes even more insidious when government power is used to shut down a small business so that a big business benefits from it.

Some would say that this is a failure of capitalism, but I would counter that this is not free market capitalism at all, but instead is corrupt "Corporatism", where the government acts as an agent of the corporation instead of acting to break up monopolies and other such things that it is /supposed/ to do in order to support free market capitalism.

Getting back to the original topic, I am pretty sure that climate change is happening, but I feel like I don't have enough information to decide whether I think it is good or bad. Our growing season is definitely longer now than it was when I was a child, and we haven't had to feed any hay yet this year, and the cows are very happy to still have fresh grass to eat. Here it seems to be a "good" thing, on balance. But I read about it being "bad" on balance in other places, with unpredictable weather and such things.

But what I do feel strongly about is, it seems like almost all of the climate change "research" is paid for by our very government that is a whore (sorry for the foul language) to big business, and I am therefore very very dubious about it being much other than politically motivated "junk science", intended to use emotion and fear to sway the masses into supporting regulations that act to shut down small business to the advantage of large corporations. Like maybe it is just more hyperbolic sensationalism, just like the misrepresented "mass shooting problem" or the statistically negligible "terrorism fearmongering", just a way to get the public worked up and pass more regulations that are detrimental to our individual freedoms in the long run, concentrating more and more of the political and economic power among the elites at the top, instead of down amongst we common people where it belongs.

But I don't know. I don't know how to know, or what data is unbiased and what isn't. My personal observations about it seeming "good" in some places and "bad" in others, I don't know how to support that without trustworthy data, and I can't tell if I am basing my opinions on unbiased observations, or if I am remembering the weather of the past through rose-colored lenses, so to speak. It is all so politicized, at least here in the States, that I am not sure that there is any room for anyone to meet in the middle any more. Both sides seem to treat it almost as a religion, and I think when we start acting that way and closing off our minds to the more neutral sorts of possibilities, that is when hope for compromise and a rational solution goes away. :(

So I guess I am not "for" or "against" climate change. But I am vehemently against politically motivated junk science, if indeed that really is what is happening here, and assuming that I am not just being a crazy person. :3

I sincerely apologize for the long-winded rant, and I hope that I haven't said anything too offensive. :) Indeed, it is hard to have a discussion on the subject, haha.