That’s a nice bit of sleight of hand. The science isn’t clear and most of it isn’t really science as it isn’t falsifiable. That doesn’t mean it’s not possibly useful but it’s also not the final word on anything.
Saying that I agree that moving carbon from the earth to the atmosphere has the ability to contribute to a warming effect. We can model that in a lab but there’s still the question of scale and complexity. But that’s just a small part of it.
The other part is does it really matter? Some models, which sensationalist media loves, will tell you we are all dead in 50 years. Other models, which aren’t so popular with media say otherwise. Point being these are models which greatly simplify reality. They don’t account for most things. But climate doomers have taken it to a quasi-religious place. It’s cultish and weird. It’s like there’s a hole being filled for some people…
A thing to be skeptical about is the billions in NGOs/etc that profit from this. That a scenario based on doom inherently attracts power as it’s useful and one that doesn’t predict doom does not.
So yeah maybe there’s some that just flat out deny. But there’s also many that are skeptical of the solutions and the motives of those pushing (and their hypocrisy) them as well as the practical reality of it all.
The science is very clear about the fact that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is going to have major consequences. Your denying that is a great example of how whether or not to accept the conclusions brought by the scientific process is highly political.
Citing "sensationalist media" doesn't strike me as very serious of you. You'd probably be better off linking to these peer reviewed papers which show that climate change doesn't matter. Ideally, you'd link to meta-studies which show that the position "climate-change doesn't matter" is anything but an extremely fringe view among climate scientists. Can you do that for me?
Science can show putting carbon into a lab created atmosphere can create a greenhouse warming effect as the carbon molecules prevent some heat from returning to space. In higher concentrations (levels we could never get to) the effect becomes more pronounced and “runaway”.
But the science does not show major consequences or catastrophe. That part is conjecture and speculation and a critical analysis of it is necessary.
You see, modeling climate is fraught with error and isn’t actually science as it isn’t falsifiable. That isn’t to say some models are useful but they’re far closer to opinion than objective fact. One only has to look at models from 25 years ago to see how wrong many were. There’s also the problem that climatologists are incentivized to project dire consequences as this gets funded because it gets reported on and creates political power. The world ending in a ball of fire is more interesting than suggesting things that could change will be manageable. Color me skeptical indeed.
I don’t keep a portfolio of opinions on the matter but read a variety of them. And there is a noticeable trend of climatologists who were dire 20 years ago being less so today. I think the article attached here for example exemplifies this. The hysteria from climate doomers is not the voice to listen to.
I don't care what you do or do not keep a portfolio of. I'm asking you to source your claims. So far you have refused to back up anything you've said.
We know that the earth is heating up (I'm sure you've seen the graphs). We know it's antrophogenic. You denying it doesn't make it less true.
And which climate scientists have been projecting that the world will end in a ball of fire in the near future??? I've heard of projections of sea level rise, more frequent droughts, more frequent wildfires, more frequent and more severe heat waves, higher ocean temperatures, etc, but I haven't heard of these "the earth will end in a ball of fire" projections you're talking about. Can you link to some?
Climate change being a fact or not doesn’t really mean that we are in a crisis or catastrophe or whatever other type of adjective climate doomers like. Al Gores 2006 movie has mainly played out wrong as most models do. And for things that could happen we aren’t really sure if they’d be bad necessarily. And if bad what is the timeline and how else can we manage?
The doomers saying we need to act now or else sound like bad used car salesmen.
My point is it’s good to be skeptical of the models that spell doom. They likely have political motivations and are unlikely.
Can you stop throwing out unsubstantiated claims and back anything up? Show something which indicates that some significant portion of climate researchers believe climate change won't have a big impact.
It’s written by Judith Curry who has tons of cited work. Searching quickly unveils much more and it’s easy to do. But you don’t want to.
Hey I get it - you’re religious about it and can’t possibly take an objective scientific approach to the analysis. Dogma works that way. Many have been hooked on the mania and meaning it brings to their lives. That’s up to you.
Dude I'm just asking for studies backing up your position. You can't provide that, and I'm starting to think it's because it doesn't exist. I'm not gonna buy and read some non-peer-reviewed book by some random person. I'm sure this one person is the fringe "climate change isn't a big deal" climatologist, I know those exist, reading their book won't convince me that they're not on the fringe which is what this whole conversation is about.
I'm done here. Keep living in your fantasy bubble where climate change is no big deal, keep ignoring the 99.9% of climate scientists who say it's a big deal; after all you have a book from the 0.01% to back you up. I clearly won't convince you about anything, and you certainly wont convince me by pointing to non-peer-reviewed writings from individuals in that 0.01%. The fact that that's the best you've got is evidence enough.
OK, cool. I think you live in a delusional world and that's OK because that's your choice. That you choose to live with needless anxiety about an imaginary catastrophe that probably won't happen is your choice. .01% lol - I don't even know where you get these numbers but I imagine you listen to some climate doomer thing that puts silly ideas like that into your head. But hey, you sure are convinced you know something here. But, you do understand how science works, right? I still can't tell.
Hint: Fitting data to your preconceived conclusion isn't science. And we all saw how this happens in Climategate.
You shouldn't rely on mass media to inform yourself or the people.
Now, there is a lot of bullshit about "green", and people profiteering from government funding to do things that don't really help, but that's just the usual politics.
It's easier to say the problem is that people flush the toilet too often or don't sort their trash rather than getting a big corporation to significantly cut their profits in the name of the environment.
You'll find that all the green initiatives mostly come from the petrol industries as a way to distract from the catastrophic impact of their businesses.
Saying that I agree that moving carbon from the earth to the atmosphere has the ability to contribute to a warming effect. We can model that in a lab but there’s still the question of scale and complexity. But that’s just a small part of it.
The other part is does it really matter? Some models, which sensationalist media loves, will tell you we are all dead in 50 years. Other models, which aren’t so popular with media say otherwise. Point being these are models which greatly simplify reality. They don’t account for most things. But climate doomers have taken it to a quasi-religious place. It’s cultish and weird. It’s like there’s a hole being filled for some people…
A thing to be skeptical about is the billions in NGOs/etc that profit from this. That a scenario based on doom inherently attracts power as it’s useful and one that doesn’t predict doom does not.
So yeah maybe there’s some that just flat out deny. But there’s also many that are skeptical of the solutions and the motives of those pushing (and their hypocrisy) them as well as the practical reality of it all.