Create a company that deals with some of the consequences.
Before you do that though, I would urge you to spend some more time looking into what people are saying on both sides. I did and it made me realize that there is a certain kind of "climate alarmist" fraction of the environmental movement that's a far cry from the more balances actual views and that they, unfortunately, are boosted by the media quite a lot probably because media likes catastrophes.
3 things I learned which made it click for me.
1) The so-called "climate deniers" aren't denying there is climate change, they aren't even denying humans affect the climate some degree. What they say is that climate is always changing and that the degree to which humans are affecting the climate isn't as clear as the most alarmist would like you to believe.
2) The 97% consensus is extremely misleading and you will find that the questions asked put the so-called climate deniers into the same bucket of the consensus because of what I mentioned in one. There is however not 97% certainty with regards to how much humans affect. The IPCC numbers are all over the map and they ex have to adjust the heat down over time. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29
3) You will not be able to get anyone to give you a straight answer when it comes to how much humans affect the environment and that's because there isn't any clear answers.
So educate yourself then decide what to do after that.
There really aren't 'both sides' to this. There's as much scientific controversy as there is over gravity or evolution.
The deniers used to deny there was change ("it's cycles!"). Then they denied it was humans (it really is, attribution is getting good). They're denying it's bad ("CO2 is plant food!"); and once things get really in train, they'll be denying ever being warned by those mean old scientists.
But you can take the same argument and turn it against the climate alarmist.
First, they said new york would be under water by now.
Then, they said the temperature was rising rapidly (but they had to adjust that claim down quite dramatically)
Then, they said the oceans are getting toxicated.
There is no clear consensus on this. We might or might not effect the climate more or less than we think.
But try and find any official number for how much humans affect the climate and you will be very dissapointed.
Science is not about certainty it's about testing hypothesis. The way climate scientist teste them is by using computer models. That's nowhere close to providing us with the scientific evidence and testability of gravity.
And evolution is a model, the best model we have to explain the evolution of species there is a lot of discussion inside of evolution.
Trying to close down any dissent or argument simply by saying there is nothing to discuss because science, is the most anti scientific thing you can do IMO.
Are you familiar with CAFE? Or the EPA in general? You were the one who made that statement about New York being underwater. Find me a date and a quote and I'll tell you exactly how things changed afterward.
The point I'm trying to make is that we've already taken steps to limit impact which is why the apocalyptic scenarios of yesteryear haven't come to pass.
"Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Where exactly does this predict that new york would be under water by now ? The BBC article quotes: "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." and "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate." "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."
The snopes articles says Al Gore sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic.
Not sure what the point about whether new york or not. The general point was that there was alarmist claims as those I linked to in the previous post.
I was responding in the same style of the claims about what the so-called "climate deniers" had claimed. I could ask the same questions with regards to the claims about what climate catastrophe skeptics have said if I wanted to be that pedantic.
I am still waiting to hear how our decisions curved those predictions as you can't have it both ways.
jschwartz is trying to have it both ways. Both claim that we curved a catastrophe by our actions while questioning it was ever claimed it would happen.
This discussion illustrates the two major views debate back in 2007
I don't want rhetorics, this is not a matter of winning an argument, I'd like to see your claim substianted to decide if they are valid and receivable.
Until now I've only see unsubstantiated bold claims, cherry picked provided evidence actually not supporting them when read and various logical fallacies attempts to get out of providing data supporting your point (You waiting for someone else to support their point is not proving yours, appealing to authority by linking to 1hour video debate, etc.)
What claims? I have provided plenty of links. What claims have I made and been asked to provide links to that I haven't?
I am not cherry picking anything. I giving examples as the only one in this thread btw. Go back and read the thread.
Where on earth am I appealing to authority? I link to a debate with two sides debating this very issue to prove a point which is that experts disagree about this which was one of my points. It's a proof of that. You on the other hand link to things and appeal to consensus, how is that useful for anything?
I literally gave you links not only to claims about New York being under water but other similar claims. The video is experts warning about the warming and the consequences being imminent.
So that critical thinking crash course you talked about, perhaps you should start by applying it to yourself.
Before you do that though, I would urge you to spend some more time looking into what people are saying on both sides. I did and it made me realize that there is a certain kind of "climate alarmist" fraction of the environmental movement that's a far cry from the more balances actual views and that they, unfortunately, are boosted by the media quite a lot probably because media likes catastrophes.
3 things I learned which made it click for me.
1) The so-called "climate deniers" aren't denying there is climate change, they aren't even denying humans affect the climate some degree. What they say is that climate is always changing and that the degree to which humans are affecting the climate isn't as clear as the most alarmist would like you to believe.
2) The 97% consensus is extremely misleading and you will find that the questions asked put the so-called climate deniers into the same bucket of the consensus because of what I mentioned in one. There is however not 97% certainty with regards to how much humans affect. The IPCC numbers are all over the map and they ex have to adjust the heat down over time. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29
3) You will not be able to get anyone to give you a straight answer when it comes to how much humans affect the environment and that's because there isn't any clear answers.
So educate yourself then decide what to do after that.