I don't understand US politics.. Most UK voters, of both political sides, agree there is an issue, and want constructive solutions. Some more US-like differences at the margins, and differences in urgency, but there appears to be a broad consensus among the public. Less so amongst politicians themselves.
Does political consensus no longer exist on any issues in the US any more? Is all science politicised?
Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage one we say nothing is going to happen."
Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it."
Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do."
Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now."
Articles like these stir me to action, but what action? Where's the mass movement on this? Where's the group, the party, the leadership?
1. Learn about the best ways to get carbon out of the atmosphere 
2. Help build the political will for carbon pricing, ideally via Fee & Dividend. The vast majority of economists agree that once GHG pollution costs are internalized, the problem will solve itself quickly. The most effective organization in this regard is Citizens' Climate Lobby  – I highly recommend getting in touch with a local chapter. We all tend to be much more cynical about politics than is warranted; I was surprised how rewarding it feels to participate in the political sausage-making.
3. (Optional) Learn about/work on/invest in future carbon removal technologies 
 Rank list of the Top 100 carbon removal strategies: https://www.drawdown.org
 Citizens' Climate Lobby: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
What can a technologist do about climate change? By Bret Victor: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
I just came home from a rally for a more climate friendly state budget in my home country of Norway. I'm energized and glad to find that there are many like-minded people in the world. I think I'll be volunteering for an environmental organization soon; turning my thoughts into action today felt good. I've been worried and waiting for change to happen. And now I've finally found somewhere to place my energy.
- Don't travel on planes(And definitely don't be like Leonardo Dicaprio using private planes after giving speech on climate change)
- Don't eat beef/pork
- Don't use AC or use it minimally
- Same with hot water
- Don't have lawn in your house
individual action and forcing corporations and governments to change are not in opposition, they are a feedback loop.
Edit: One reason I doubt this is, China emits half of US per capita emissions while manufacturing more(steel, concrete, most high volume products) per capita.
You can drive an EV, or stop eating beef, or pay the renewable-energy rate on your electric bill, and feel good about it if you want, but it won't make a bit of difference on a global scale.
The focus on our individual behavior is all well and good as far as it goes, but I agree with a commenter below that it can't be the only thing each of us does. I don't own a car, I live in an apartment building, I eat very little red meat, etc. But the hour is getting late, clearly, and it can't just be "let's make sure everyone recycles". Power is real: a small number of people in this world wield vast amounts of it, and they're dead-set on staying the course. My not eating beef will not make a dent in those peoples' behavior, so it's times like these when our/my American focus on "what we can do as individuals" feels maddeningly myopic. I want something more. I guess the good news is a lot of you feel the same way, maybe?
- number of gigatons emitted to date
- rate of ongoing emissions
- change in the rate of ongoing emissions
- what total emissions numbers correspond to what PPM in the atmosphere
- what ppm in the atmosphere correspond to what degrees of C warming (in various timeframes)
here is a nice infographic from the latest ipcc report that shows some of them:
pay particularly close attention to the one in the bottom left.
- what degrees C warming correspond to drought, desertification and crop failures in what areas/river-valleys (note: sea level rise won't actually be a problem until after the famines, focus on the famines)
Once you get a feel for the numbers the "what to do" becomes a fairly obvious "everything/panic/get-super-duper-radical". But I can't elaborate on that more here because it ranges from "borderline communist levels of leftism" to "out and out eco-sabotage".
DO NOT fall for the false framing that a rump dumbass 20-30% of the population doesn't "believe" in global warming. That is smug nonsense that people use to justify a false-framing of some kind of stalemate. No society ever convinced everybody of the way forward. The real problem is the litany of excuses and magical thinking that the so called "believers" will come up with to do nothing. Such as:
- there's nothing we can do, give up, its too late
- magically innovative technology will save us just hold your breath till it comes along
- teh markat will provide! if we can just do this spreadsheet game with tax credits or something
- i can't do that thing i should do because even though I'm one of the richest humans on earth and that ever lived I've cast myself as a victim of the current economic order and cannot afford to do anything.
Now, all that said as context, here are the top 5 things, IN ORDER (assuming you're a middle class american), you can do to curtail your and your families carbon footprint:
1.) have a negative-population-growth number of children. that means somewhere in the <2.1 range (stupid joke about cutting parts of babies goes here).
2.) do not use a car on a daily basis. ideally don't even own one. if you must own one make it electric.
3.) live in a 5+ unit building. this cuts your heating/cooling/lighting footprint roughly in half, and ties into the car thing above (mid rise apts correlate strongly to walkable areas). no amount of solar panels and electric cars will make suburban-sprawl a sustainable land use or energy consumption model in your or your childs lifetime. this is the absolute hardest part for americans to swallow, they will pitch a temper tantrum fit and write off the messenger rather than grasp this one.
4.) fly (round trip) less than once a year
5.) don't eat red meat, or at least cows. even if you're not ready to give it up, you could deliberately replace red meat meals with chicken fish or vegitable alternatives more often.
However, I want to stress that viewing things through the lens of individualized personal consumption levels is a TERRIBLE focus. This is the the most universal problem humanity has ever faced. You want to do the 5 things above not because it will cut your footprint 10 - 20 tons per year (~50 - 80%, which it will), but because you will be contributing to building a society in which everyones footprint is cut. You want to normalize apartment dwelling, walking, public transit, avoiding unecessary flights, and avoiding red meat. That is how you contribute to building a sustainable future society. You need to walk the walk not for a few tons, but to show your children and neighbors the way forward.
- I vaguely recall a Fredric Brown (?) story where people turn to (conceptually, self-defense) violence against cars because they've reached the insight that the fumes are literally killing them, like cigarette smoke.
- Some people (hmmm, "some people I know") have chosen direct action and planned+participated in sabotage of pipelines and railroads (used for coal and oil transport). Several were arrested in multiple states, but the overall outcome was symbolic with limited media coverage; not really what I imagined as effective, direct action. Now, some have spent time in jail, and some are scared because they feel responsible to their young children, and what happens to the kids if their parents spend a long time in jail?
Sure it's good to minimize energy use as you outline. But where does it leave you in terms of tonnes of CO2/year?
AFAIK the Paris accord goals (inadequate as they are) imply a target of around 1500 kg of CO2 per capita yearly. Homeless people achieve that in the west. You won't get near those levels, hower much you try to reduce your personal consumption.
We're not going to individual-responsibility our way out of this, and I wonder if getting people to try will just give them a false sense of accomplishment.
the way you get mass action is by getting a mass of individuals to act. there is technically no other way. thats why I left the 'individual' stuff to the very end and made sure to explain how its not really about your footprint as much as its pulling your oar in the overall solution.
I recently built a site to empower you to take action to Ask them to improve.
See here: https://www.yourstake.org/ask/vanguard-vanguard-tell-compani...
And running a business that's a significant part of your income creates an incentive to keep at it religiously and relentlessly. That incentive is weaker without the profit motive, when it's about making an uncertain contribution to other people over decades.
The fact we do not see such a buy up of future water front property means they either don't think the evidence is there, or they are extremely optimistic about our ability to reverse climate change, or extremely pessimistic about the future such that humankind will be wiped out or something.
> Where's the group, the party, the leadership?
Humanity's failure to respond to the climate change crisis shows that groups, parties, and leadership are inadequate; we need some new way of organizing ourselves. Perhaps the kids will figure it out.
Key numbers to get the point across.
* Starting mitigation in 2000 would have required mitigation rate 4%/year. (1.5 C goal)
* Starting mitigation in 2018 will require mitigation rate 18%/year. 18 percent! (1.5 C goal). There is no realistic scenario where this can happen.
* Nine years from now complete halt of all manmade CO2 emissions is too late to prevent crossing 1.5C.
* Global fossil and cement CO2 emissions keep going up, not down: http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFu...
* CO2 mitigation curve becomes steeper and steeper. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigati...
I just read for instance an editorial from nature which said that 10-30% of coral reefs survive at 1.5C but none survive at 2C. I’d like more of that kind of information to understand the risk profile.
I'm not saying we should ignore it, but we often overstate. It's worth remembering that the effects on QoL will be completely eclipsed by technological progress within that period and that the timescales that GW happen over (50+ years) are long enough that most people will hardly ever notice it. Gradual relocation will be our primary means of fighting it. Other cities will be raised, like Chicago was in the 1850s.
FUD is not a genuine approach to invoke action - which has sadly been the main approach of many. We should remain reasoned.
"The fourth and latest National Climate Assessment put together by 300 scientists from 13 agencies of the U.S. government and released last month found that climate change is real, man-made, and will cost the U.S. 10 percent of its economy by 2100. Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields, and trillions of dollars in coastal real estate will be at risk. The wildfires out west, already unprecedented in their destruction, will get worse. Hurricanes and typhoons will grow more ferocious. Epidemic diseases will flourish."
And that's just for the US. Large portions of Africa and the Middle East are predicted to become uninhabitable. The threat to human life on a time-scale of 100 years or more is gargantuan.
and other farmers will benefit and have increased yeilds. I don't mind facts. But misleading ones I do mind.
This is alarmism on the grandest scale and a horrifying hypocritical at that. There is nothing we can do about CO2 right now. We can just continue to work on safer and cleaner ways to generate electricity (atomic mainly, fusion hopefully, solar for the local homes, etc.)
Also, a permanent loss of 10% is not a small recession, most recessions lead to no permanent loss, just a demand shock which is made up afterwards. A permanent loss of 10% is more like the financial crisis, and I’d rather avoid that if I can. One brought Trump and Brexit, I’d rather not add another to the mix.
If anything like countries needing to move inland happens it will mean that the world is already in economic ruin and the survivors are in a roadwarrior/madmax style existence.
if this needs to happen, the world will in a such a state that YOU will not be able to buy a beer or watch tv.
Designing new cities without the cruft of older ones is a huge opportunity. However, it's likely that most building owners will just add couple extra meters of dirt below when it comes time to rebuild a given structure. Even skyscrapers do not last forever.
In today's world, we see (much smaller) groups of people trying to relocate as their homes become intolerably dangerous. The press calls it "the refugee crisis" and it's causing massive tension all over the world. What do you think will happen if the flow of refugees continues increasing, year after year, for decades?
It’s not a huge deal. It’s a moderate deal.
Moving cities is not a huge deal. I’ve personally done it 3 times. It’s not a small deal either, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not a mayday scenario.
Even my ancestors who made 1/100th the income I do moved multiple times.
And no, it has nothing to do with income
That highlights what's wrong with your PoV. If sea-level rise were the only issue, your comment might actually make some sense ... but that's not the case. Climate change will also lead to droughts, floods, famine, conflicts over water, species extinction, possible collapse of entire ecosystems, and a host of other ills too numerous to mention. Normal technical progress isn't going to solve biodiversity problems we barely understand, or human-society problems that will be driven by warming. It would require a major leap on par with the birth of atomic physics or molecular genetics. Maybe more than one. You want to talk about what's rational? Faith in the modern equivalent of miracles is not rational.
FWIW I'm convinced that it's serious this time, but history abounds with examples of breathless malthusian doomsday predictions that failed to pass.
Or, pump out even more carbon dioxide to increase the warming and water vapor, and hence increase cloud cover to cool the earth.
I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.
How many of those are in climate related sciences?
"many"? The consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is quite compelling.
There are no such scientists, let alone "many". And it doesn't matter what people "hypothesize".
I know the names of the handful of "lukewarm" climate scientists who don't hold the consensus position; none of them take the position that you put forth, and I can be certain that you can't name any of these "many" scientists.
The scientists who claim "current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made" are not taken seriously by the mainstream, form an unimaginably slim minority and frankly are dangerously wrong.
For example, Ignaz Semmelweis (from wiki):
> Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia
Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.
The article itself mentions Trump twice. Tell me all about how it’s not political.
> there are no inconsistencies in my testimonies against the government, against the fossil fuel industry
I lump climate change blamers into the same category. The moment you start talking about individual country (or any specific body) per capita and cumulative, you're making a political statements that someone is responsible and needs to be accountable because of their history (back to the 1750s in this one). ie These people are bad because there's metrics that fit my message and all other people are good because they have different metrics.
Seriously, how is the regional political accounting relevant to the objective analysis of what the correlation, causation and projections are?
I guess the idea is something like: "you're historically the worst (even if you're not the worst today) and you have resources, so it's up to you to try to fix it but we're not gonna even suggest how, but just sayin'". It reads like a lack of confidence in their own conclusions.
More like "So you deserve a larger responsibility for fixing this and we're suggesting, maybe start with stop mining coal and not electing a president who calls climate change a Chinese hoax?" but sure, same thing.
>so it's up to you to try to fix it but we're not gonna even suggest how,
That's the thing though, they are saying how. And it's to give money to the rest of the world and curb your production to allow them to pollute in your place which is "fair".
At least the flat-earthers are harmless. The climate-change deniers are preventing necessary action on issues of life and death.
If we are serious about the current issues of climate change, and about potential asteroid impacts, why should we not also be planning for the mid- to long-term risk of the return to an Ice Age?
It is hard to sort out exactly what climate change means.
This one is much faster. Not everyone sees it of course. Change blindness is what they call it.
During the last interglacial (Eemian, ca. 129–116k years ago) sea level was 6-9 meters higher than today; Scandinavia was an island. The water temperature of the North Sea was about 2°C higher than at present; hippos lived as far North as the Rhine and the Thames. The onset of the Eemian took just a few centuries, during which global temperatures shot up >5°C.
The Eemian was caused by reduced North Atlantic ocean circulation, a courtesy of the previous Saale glaciacion period, too much fresh water, and continued transfer of heat from the south.
It produced abrupt effects localized to high altitude areas. Most of what you described occured in the later stages of this 15000 year long period.
The Eemian cannot be really compared to the current global warming, a potential AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) instability is just one out of the thousand problems we are facing.
A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.
John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
I am pretty sure that if you looked at North Korea today, you could find some weird scientific national consensus, which obviously does not mean anything.
It seems to be the consensus of a portion of the scientific establishment, which is certainly not representative of the whole world.
And, if, for sake of argument, we grant this scientific consensus represents the perspective of the world, it still does not follow this somehow precludes faulty reasoning and groupthink. "Science" is not a magic wand that automatically eliminates the normal sources of human bias, especially as recent news illustrates the rampant fraud and unreproducible results in the scientific establishment.
The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%.
It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.
A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
There was no scientific misconduct there, only climate denialists taking messages out of context. Even then you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see anything into it.
I don't think anyone ever stashed (or could stash) a whole century of research into a single Github repository, but around 95% of what you seek is out there.
For the data source I would start with the Global Historical Climatology Network (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access).
And if this is such an important issue, and so many people remain to be convinced, wouldn't it behoove researchers to make their research as transparent, clear and reproducible as possible? Seems that can only help the debate move forward in a productive manner.
UPDATE: I followed your link, and things that stand out to me:
- Images showing station concentration shows only in fairly recent history that stations are global. Before then they're mostly concentrated in the US and Europe, and the station data only goes back to the mid 1800s, and is pretty sparse up until the last few decades. It is unclear how such sparse temperature data can give us a clear understanding of how world temperatures have changed over the past few centuries due to industrialization.
- The unfiltered 'all' category is not easily accessible. I'd either have to download a whopping 2.9G tar, or visit the directory that does not seem to load very quickly. I'm thinking it is just a flat dump of the files without hierarchical organization, so FTP tries to fetch everything.
- The accessible 'yearly' category readme.txt states the data is not raw, but 'merged together' and subjected to 'quality assurance review' just like the monthly counterpart, which I assume is the 'all' category. So, even if I did download the 2.9G tar, I cannot get the raw readings from the ground stations.
This is the sort of lack of clarity and transparency that does not improve the skeptic's perception on the matter.
One can admit to degrees of model uncertainty without insinuating that climate change is a matter of opinion.
You talk about the russian roulette with climate, but the issue is far more complicated. There are bunch of other russian roulettes to consider with policy and society. What if society needs carbon to run the economy and keep the jobs and peace? What if oil-dependent countries collapse and turn to war, terrorism or mass-migration? Those are substantial risks that can kill many people and affect the quality of life for the worse globally too. You see what happened in France when they raised the fuel tax. It's not hard to imagine some worse scenarios.
Did you listen when they agreed that proposed measures will not stop ocean water levels from rising? Did you listen to the cost-benefit analysis and socio-economic impact? Why are you ignoring this point? You don't think it's important?
If climate models are as likely to undershoot then how do you explain that ALL the best models in consideration overshot the last 30 years and not a single model undershot? If it was just as likely shouldn't we be seeing some models undershooting?
Yes, every climate model overshot air warming leading up to 2014. But they also all undershot ocean warming. That's because, for some reason nobody understands, from 1998 to 2014 all the extra thermal energy caused by CO2 forcing went into the ocean. But since 2014 air temperatures have shot up very rapily and now we're back on the trend-line predicted by models. But really, you could just as easily have argued that models were undershooting because they all predicted cooler oceans than we got. And Ocean warming is the important part for determining sea levels. Christy was dishonestly cherry picking stats to make it look like errors only go in one direction when really they go in both.
If all you know about the global warming debate is what was in that video I can see how you found it convincing but it's actually a very shallow treatment of the whole topic. It's really hard to get into depth in a video, that why so many of us are reluctant to watch them when someone links to one.
EDIT: And in the future, can you try summarizing things from a video like this you found persuasive rather than just telling people to watch the video? If you had mentioned the "Overshot for the last 30 years" thing it should have been immediately obvious to people who follow climate science what was happening and how you'd been mislead. Then I wouldn't have had to wade through an hour long video trying to figure out what you found persuasive in it. I'm generally reluctant to watch videos linked off of Hacker News because they usually aren't worth it and after this I think people are going to find it even harder to persuade me to do so without better evidence.
You can't just say Christy was dishonestly cherry-picking, because those data points are what was represented in the IPCC reports as concerning. They are the important data points that dictate the policy, not the undershooting data points. IPCC already cherry-picked these data points with the overshoot to raise the alarm.
Things I found persuasive? You are suggesting the the video represents only one side. This is a debate and both sides raised valid questions. You are exactly what they talked about when asked if they feel embarrassed by the tribal behaviour on either side.
The big picture seems pretty certain tho
i'm still to hear the "other side" of CO2 molecules absorption spectrum, specifically in infrared. 200 years and still no such "other side" ...
"Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. "
While CO2 promoters point out the fact that solar irradiance changes are relatively small over time, they ignore that those same irradiance changes correspond to changes in solar magnetism, which means changes in cosmic ray incidence on planetary atmospheres. It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation.
It's really not as clear cut as you have been taught.
The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent.
"It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation."
Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect in the real, present-day atmosphere is very tiny.
"Cosmic particles would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.”
"If clouds were affected by cosmic rays, they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed."
This work offers a new understanding of global particle
formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than
binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant
role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming
aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate
This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change.
The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This represents less than 10% (several per cent) of the total particle formation from nucleation, a major, but subdominant role. Nucleation (the creation of big enough particles) itself plays a 43% role, the rest is particles already in the atmosphere. So cosmic rays is less than 10% of 43%.
In any case if cosmic ray created aerosols would have such a large effect on clouds, so would other aerosols, such as those from air pollution.
Clouds themselves play a less than 10% role in climate change, so it's like 10% of the 10% (cosmic ray nucleation) of 43% (nucleation), as I said a tiny effect. Clouds also not just trap heat, but reflect sunlight back, cooling the planet.
As Ken Carslaw, one of the authors of the paper suggested: "It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important". https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-glob...
Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.
Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009.
See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far.
Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground.
I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper.
The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe....
Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim.
The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".
We have shown a strong correlation between solar and
tropospheric variability, in that swings from El Ni˜no
to La Ni˜na are related to the phase of the solar
cycle’s “fiducial clock,” and that that clock does not
run from the canonical solar minimum or maximum, but
instead resets when all old cycle flux is gone from the
solar disk. While the exact mechanism remains to be
elucidated, changes in cosmic ray flux appear to the be
the driver of these ENSO swings.
Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF
variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year
or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However,
should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO
swing then we must seriously consider the capability of
coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture
“step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth
connection is, with particular attention to the relationship
between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over
They plan to establish causation by predicting ENSO changes based on solar activity, which is good. Once they do that, they will need to prove that cosmic rays are more important in cloud microphysics than the CERN CLOUD experiments suggests so far.
This is what real science is. Great find.
Have a look at the episodes of the Netflix series "Bill Nye Saves the World" on climate change. If you can watch without cringing, congratulations. I can't. Or take this interview Nye did with Tucker Carlsen:
Nye, and those who share his intolerant attitude toward justified skepticism do their cause more harm than good.
Every hypothesis should be questioned. The more sweeping the claims, the more pointed the questioning should be. Science is not immune to groupthink. The problem is magnified when a scientific hypothesis takes on a political dimension.
Take this quote from the article:
Climate has always been changing, but humans are now the
principal drive for climate change, overwhelming natural climate variability.
I challenge any reader of the article to find a clear, logical, undeniable chain of evidence from hypothesis to the conclusion that humans are responsible for rising planet temperatures.
"every hypothesis should be questioned."
It is, constantly, literally on a daily basis. That's how we know.
What does pop culture (Bill Nye) has anything to do with this.
Also many of us are a bit beyond just theoretical discussions. It's 2018. We are increasingly affected by climate change to the point that many of us are packing, because the shit already hit the fan. What's a fun theoretical discussion for you (at the moment) is actually life and death for many.
Even the link you gave fails to enumerate the evidence for a human cause, and itself links to another article.
I realize that some have made up their minds, but the extraordinary claim of a mainly human cause requires extraordinary evidence. And that evidence is hardly discussed, nor are alternative hypotheses given their due.
This is the problem I'm trying to highlight. The discussion has veered from scientific to religious.
We've had 40 years of unmistakable data, and at this point, anyone pushing this "the science isn't settled" talking point – adopted from the tobacco industry – either has a vested interest in denialism or simply falls really far left on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
When these people say something about science, for better or worse, they speaks for science in many people's minds.