What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

westend wrote:
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.

Well put.

I find that few if any deniers really understand the CO2 cycle and how it traps heat. Global climate change is not that complicated, and if you understand how it works, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than industrialized man is causing it. If you deny it, chances are you really don't understand it. It baffles me how people deny something they don't understand.

Science has always been rebuffed when its findings disrupt any industry. The tobacco companies come to mind. And getting lead out of gasoline was a 20-year battle. Seems obvious now, but back then as now, it was a hell of a fight. And there was always a "scientist" wwilling to testify that putting lead in the air was no big deal.

It is futile to argue with a denier. It's like arguing about Trump. Everyone's mind is made up and there's no changing it.