If it is already inevitable, then why worry? Just learn what will consequences will be, and put money where it will make profit THEN (like, buy land on high latitudes where it is currently almost worthless, and short land on low elevations and/or low latitudes).
Because, if you read the article, it's actually not "inevitable." What it would take is drastic, coordinated action, lead by the United States, within the next 10 years to reduce emissions to zero or near zero in order to prevent the worst case scenarios from being realistic. This can be done, but not without the cooperation of the top climate polluters, almost all of which are American corporations. Oh, and also the US government is one of those top polluters.
Do you think it can be done? I mean realistically, not theoretically?
I see this as far too demanding for everyone, and far too short for viable alternatives to come up to be a realistic target. On the other hand, this year has shown that people are far more prepared to make huge sacrifices for what we think is the greater good than I would have expected just a year ago.
Honestly? No, I do not. One thing this year has shown me is that a large portion of the population is 100% unwilling to make any sacrifices whatsoever, however small. It's going to take all of us working together to make it happen.
I'm not. Earth will be fine without humans, just as it was millions of years ago, before humans were even a thing.
If you believe that climate scientists enjoy preaching doom and gloom, you've honestly got a problem. Scientists have every incentive to publish and publicize good science. I suspect you didn't even read the article I linked, much less any of the papers linked within, did you?
Tell me: what does your salary depend on you not understanding that makes you unable to even consider the possibility that climate change is real, and it will likely destroy civilization?
I read the paper about The Titanic, would you suggest another one which you feel is better?
But please excuse me for a while, as I am off for a walk : we are having blue skies here in nothern NL and I look forward to get radiated by this giant nuclear fusion from the sky.
The fact that 10 models were correct doesn't say much unless we also know how many models were wrong. It's easy to cherrypick the best ones in retrospect. If there are enough models, even if all of them are bullshit, some will be correct, the same way a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
If it weren’t paywalled I could’ve done that. It seems that either you expected me to pay, or you didn’t realize this, which would put some irony in your almost obsessively and smugly bugging people about reading your links, when you didn’t even put in the effort yourself.
> How many climate models do you think there are?
I don’t know, probably more than the 14 they analyzed? What matters more than count anyway is whether the high-impact policy-shaping papers were accurate.
> What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking?
What evidence do you have that there’s not? If you trust the authors, that’s fine. I just personally happen to think trust isn’t enough.
Now: what evidence do you have of cherry picking on the part of the authors? You raised the issue, you questioned the integrity of the researchers, so it's your burden to show that there was cherry picking.
Actually, here, let me spoon feed you even more. Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the methods section:
> We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early‐1990s that include climate
model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in
time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria.
Starting in the mid‐1990s, climate modeling efforts were primarily undertaken in conjunction with the
IPCC process (and later, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects, CMIPs), and model projections were
taken from models featured in the IPCC FAR (1990), Second Assessment Report (SAR‐IPCC, 1996), Third
Assessment Report (TAR‐IPCC, 2001), and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4‐IPCC, 2007).
> The specific models projections evaluated were Manabe, 1970 (hereafter Ma70), Mitchell, 1970 (Mi70),
Benson, 1970 (B70), Rasool & Schneider, 1971 (RS71), Sawyer, 1972 (S72), Broecker, 1975 (B75), Nordhaus,
1977 (N77), Schneider & Thompson, 1981 (ST81), Hansen et al., 1981 (H81), Hansen et al., 1988 (H88), and
Manabe & Stouffer, 1993 (MS93). The energy balance model projections featured in the main text of the
FAR, SAR, and TAR were examined, while the CMIP3 multimodel mean (and spread) was examined for
the AR4 (multimodel means were not used as the primary IPCC projections featured in the main text prior
to the AR4). Details about how each individual model projection was digitized and analyzed as well as assessments of individual models included in the first three IPCC reports can be found in the supporting information
Do you still want to accuse these researchers of bad faith?
To you, the fact that their methods section didn't loudly announce they're cherrypicking might be enough evidence to trust them.
To me, the fact that climate science has made its fair share of vast, vast mispredictions, such as the prestigious Club of Rome's 1972 model saying we'd run out of petroleum in ~2000, means that the default assumption is mistrust, not trust.
You can call me a tinfoil hatter, but I think if one wants conclusive evidence on the accuracy of climate models they'd have to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. That's obviously way too much effort for a snide internet discussion, but the point is that if the field is mostly bullshit, that's just not refutable by pointing to the same people saying they're not bullshitting.
> You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did?
The very point I was making is you should do it yourself. Good job ignoring it.
> Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view?
You're mistaken, this paper fits my world view perfectly. It's saying climate science is mostly accurate, if you look at a set of accurate models. This is obviously sound reasoning. It's just not saying anything.
So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?
> You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really?
Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it.
But because you're asking so incredulously:
Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.
