Perhaps there are multiple factors involved. For example the IPCC email scandal, or the fact that complex mathematical forecasting models involve a lot of hand-wavey guesswork (Neal Ferguson's COVID model the latest example), or that the earth has experienced periods of warming and cooling over millennia.
> Perhaps there are multiple factors involved. For example the IPCC email scandal
There was no scandal. What happened is that the University of East Anglia was hacked, and the emails of the Climate Research Unit were stolen. Climate skeptics then trolled through the archives and selected short quotes out of context, completely distorting the meaning behind the emails, which were perfectly fine and entirely unobjectionable.
How can a pseduoscandal invented by climate skeptics possibly be a reason for why climate skeptics exist?
Maybe the distortions and fake outrage did convince some people, but it still seems wrong to point to this as a valid cause.
The top level README.md contains what the compilers thought were some of the most damning texts, and give reference so you can see the context for yourself.
Here are some from the README.md:
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's
included and what is left out.
The top level README.md contains what the compilers thought were some of the most damning texts, and give reference so you can see the context for yourself.
Here are some from the README.md:
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's
included and what is left out.
Yes, we would like to quiet celebrity skeptics. They're a bunch of dipshits who are not acting in good faith and we're running out of time.
The internet works even though its built on a horrifyingly rickety series of dependencies. People complain about other people's code. The only code that doesn't have someone complaining about it is signed Knuth, and Djikstra would probably complain about something if you asked him.
At no point did I say the science was wrong. It isn't. If anything, the projections are too rosy.
There are types of speech that are legitimately harmful, and discussing how to protect people from its harms is part of being in a functioning society.
Programmers complain about code, but that doesn't make the results wrong. I guess I could explain why the models aren't can't be exactly predictive, but nobody wants a deep dive on epistemology.
But the deeper problem is this isn't a great use of anyone's time:
"You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
Your not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.
Your skepticism is based on some combination of fear and pride, not reason, but it's ok. I'm not mad at you. I'm sure you're doing your best.
Of all FUD about human caused climate catastrophe I especially don’t get why “over millennia” is an argument when we’re basically talking about a fifty year window.
What worries me is the current trend of thinking we are all powerless against the mighty climate and that the only way we can survive is to aim for less and lower or collective standard of living.
I object to the idea that a lower-carbon lifestyle is necessarily a lower standard of living. A lot of of our carbon emissions come from doing things that aren't even good for us or actively make us unhappy: long car commutes, excessive meat consumption, buying too much cheap stuff.
If there were reasonable technologies on the immediate horizon for carbon capture then there might be an argument that our present consumption could be sustained while mitigating climate change. Unfortunately we have no such technology and we are not appropriately funding efforts that could get us there.
