We know that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will result in higher temperatures (the mechanism is well understood, and the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades), we also know rising temperatures will result in rising sea levels (again, we have empirically observed this happening at rates consistent with our understanding of the mechanism). From there it's just math to figure out how much coastal land will be inundated over the coming century (which is just one of many implications of climate change).

You are suggesting various ways in which that might not happen, with no evidence supporting them, from the perspective of someone who doesn't have much of an understanding of climate science. Do you think it is more likely that you have outsmarted 97% of climate scientists, or that the experts are more likely to know what they're talking about than you are?

Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion.

In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority.

Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.

That's not my understanding. We had a warming "pause" from 2000 to 2010 (approximately). That was certainly not predicted.

Then scientists went back to look for an explanation of the "pause". Ocean temperature data was then incoporated, other data adjusted and the "pause" was no more.

I would characterize the climate modelling as constantly evolving. We don't have it nailed yet.

Even more importantly, the net effects (sea level rise, etc) were well within the predicted range.

I think it's unrealistic to believe we can get the whole planet to reduce CO2 emission, so we should stop spending so much effort on it and find other solutions.

I also doubt how much rising sea level will actually hurt humanity. Even in the worst case scenario were talking about an inch or two a year. This is slow enough to easily build a wall, dredge to raise up land, or move buildings away from rising waters. Besides, who puts buildings five feet above the water? The vast majority of buildings would just flood more often. It's not like buildings on the coast don't already get hit by cyclones.

Why?

The problem with fossil fuels - especially coal, isn't "just CO2", it's all the ash that is killing people.

The problems with oil extraction isn't just the CO2 at the end, it's all the crude and junk stuff going (bunker oil), and the political power of the oil lobby, and how dictatorships are financed by these resources.

Sure, these are the factors that make it hard to change, even "locally", within the US.

> cyclones

Yes, and just estimate the cost of a lot more cyclones. It turns out to be a lot more than switching to non-fossil stuff. And that's why a lot of people think that it's not rational to try to continue the consumption of fossil fuels (in a way that leads to CO2 emissions).

No, that wasn't my claim. If I have a claim, it's that, instead of simply moving away, people keep building up an active seismic fault that's likely to suffer a catastrophic earthquake in the near future. Even high taxes (some of which funded the policy piece you cited) and massively increased costs of construction (such as proposed in the policy piece you cited) aren't incentive enough to stop.

This aspect of human behavior is worth remembering when someone suggests similar "incentives" to address climate change. It's trying to incentivize the same mindset that would rather build cities out of springs and pendulums than move to stable land.

We should face the reality that humans will eventually deal with the negative side of climate change using (not so?) metaphorical springs, levers, stilts, and who-knows-what, and it will be okay.

I don't click Forbes links, but from the URL it looks like it's about a hoax bill that was proposed for PR purposes. Not interested.

If a storm cuts off gas, electricity, water, internet, and paved road access to these people, and the government says "What's the problem? People have been living without them for most of history!", these same people would cry bloody murder (as anybody else would).

Someone asked him about climate change, and his reply was (quoting from memory, so forgive me if I get the wording slightly off): "As I understand it, in 11 billion years, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, making the issue of climate change moot."

Well, that's great because it's both true and absolutely nonsensical. And it's a great way to do absolutely nothing, policy-wise, for any problem. "What about police violence?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..." "What's your position on the student loan debt crisis?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..."

You're right, and this is a common problem when you're in a leadership role. The information is imperfect. If this weren't true we wouldn't need leaders, we'd be omniscient. Often, reasonable people could disagree about the best course of action. The trick is to have vision, judgement, and a willingness to take risks and decisive action with good transparency.

> I sit back and wonder why I should worry about this...

You're in good company. Most of our leadership has been taking the same strategy.

> I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers.

It shouldn't be surprising that there isn't one clear answer. Earth is a complex system, and it is changing in many ways right now.

> I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!"

The pace of global warming is indeed a problem, as organisms cannot migrate or adapt fast enough. Forest ecosystems, for example, may not be able to migrate to cooler latitudes or elevations. [1]

> I also wonder why none of the engineers suggested opening the windows instead of producing less heat.

Not an option. Except for the sunlight streaming in, our planet is a closed system. A spaceship[2] may be a better analogy.

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130915-clima... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth

Actually, it is an option. Either we can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back underground where it came from; or we could start doing climate engineering to increase the reflectivity of Earth (less sunlight in), using water vapor clouds at low altitude or aerosols at high altitude; or we could put up a big shade in space between us and the sun.

Are those expensive and difficult things? Definitely. But all of them are possible.

Maybe they aren't exact with their knowledge. Maybe even it'll be more out of control than even they are able to forecast.

What then?