Take something like curve fitting. That's not done based on some rigid methodology it's based on best guesses by the individuals. And because you are dealing with something as politicized as climate change that basically means that the validity of these metastudies is at least questionable.

Keep in mind without climate change fear there is no need for climate change scientist. The climate is always changing but the scientists can easily cover that.

You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry.

The climate is changing but lets' stop pretending the hockey stick is science. It's not it's an interpretation of data a very very very different thing.

On top of that. The claim that we only have 12 years left to do something about things is NOT science its speculation based on interpretation of the available data.

Of course, the models aren't science. If it was science we wouldn't have different outcomes based on different inputs. We wouldn't be talking about a spectrum from almost nothing to +6 degrees.

What exactly did they predict though with regards to the martian weather? It's is orders of magnitudes simpler than ours so that's not really an argument and no you can't trust the models cause they are based on very different things.

What I am saying is that neither you nor anyone else has shown scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change we don't know how to deal with.

So I would love someone to be specific with showing something we don't know how to deal with and which would warrant some of the more extreme proposals we have heard such as ban fossile fuels and subsidies to sun and wind.

And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change.

My understanding is the models are an approximation but fed with real world data. You can't compare this to a law of physics.

That's why we get a range and not exact values, so don't take the 12 years literal - it's also an approximation.

There is much more explained on the NASA website

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

RE: You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry.

What's in it for the climate scientists, e.g. what's in it for James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) to not be truthful about this? What's in it for him if he can convince the world that global warming has negative consequences for our habitat? Maybe the outcome would be that we would make a more concerted effort to get off fossil fuels and maybe try to have a more sustainable lifestyle? I don't think that's a bad outcome.

There is a lot of profit for the oil industry to spread misinformation and for lobbying to keep the status quo. Exxonmobil's scientist already knew about climate change, but then Exxonmobil spread misinformation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

RE: And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change.

Our local environment is connected to the global environment - you can't separate the two. Stuff gets into the stratosphere and then around the whole world or our plastic straws end up in a turtle's nose.

It's one big system.

They are approximations using approximate data which isn't being checked for validity trying to predict consequences 50-80 years out.

I am not taking it literally I am not even taking it seriously.

Again I am well aware of the literature you still haven't been able to show actual proof of any claim of us having 12 or approximately 12 years left to avoid some catastrophe you haven't even substantiated what catastrophe or show that we can't deal with it.

There are plenty of scientists who think Hansen is wrong and it's certainly been wrong that New York would be under water by 2010 as it was claimed by some. In fact, all claims about our inability to deal with climate change have so far been wrong.

What do you mean what's in it for climate scientists? Their livelihood exactly the same as you claim is in it for the oil industry and which is in it for the Greentech industry. What do the scientists who are skeptical about the claims have to gain from this? You are only applying ill intent to one side not the other. There is plenty of NASA scientists who are skeptics too.

Of course, I can separate the two when it comes to what I can do something about and what I can't. I can do something about whether someone should pollute in my backyard I can't do anything about whether China decides to build yet another coal factory.

I would really urge you to spend the time and dig into this. Read both sides of the argument and then tell me that you don't come back much less confident in anything you hear.

Yes, I'd like to dig into this, so I can better understand where you're coming from.

Can you share your sources, scientists, reports etc? Thx

I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons.

But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about.

Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion.

So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ

Thanks.

My sources are science journals and talks by those climate scientists mentioned previously.

I watched the 1st and 3rd video.

The first one was good but it was a bit all over the place, I wish they had more time to discuss this in more detail.

The way I understood is that Prof Lindzen argues that there is no man made climate change that's an existential threat and the other scientist are alarmist and says they are heavily biased and suggested that there is even conspiracy, but wouldn't say who is behind this conspiracy. He even urged Trump to withdraw from the climate accord. What is wrong with investing more heavily in renewable tech? What about gradually decreasing oil subsidies and funneling those to clean tech.

For example what if those climate scientist are right, we only have one biosphere.

The 3rd with Epstein - he isn't a scientist and he didn't present any evidence either (maybe he does in this book). But I get his point, of course fossil fuels were and are useful and helped to build our civilization. But the counterpoint is that we need to get off it and ensure that we use the cleanest form of fossil fuels.

Even if it's confirmed at a later stage that there is no man made climate change that's a threat, the fossil fuel industry creates pollution that's not healthy for humans and other life on this planet. We have the know how, but not enough is being done to make the shift. Of course it's not realistic to suddenly ban the use of fossil fuels. But more needs to be done to invest in clean tech.

Again, what if those models and scientists are right that man made climate change is a threat. We don't really want to experiment with our only habitat.

LIke the moderator from the rubin report, since I'm not a scientist in these matters, I need to take what the majority of scientist are saying more seriously vs some fringe scientist who only say the others didn't prove anything therefore we can continue as usual.

Better be safe than sorry.

Anyway, thanks for posting those links - but I'm not convinced yet and I rather err on the cautious side and try to continue reducing my carbon footprint, even if Lindzen thinks it's just a symbolic gesture

PS: I didn't watch the 2nd video, only the first few minutes. This format looked a bit more promising, but the debate is from 2007 - that's over 10 years ago - new data and maybe new models have emerged since then to give us a better understanding of climate change. I parked this for now.

My sources are all sorts of things however as you said yourself if you are not a scientist you don't really have the ability to know what is true and what is false here and so it's much better to see these debates as they flush out the actual disagreements.

No new models have emerged that changes things in any fundamental way again. You are more than welcome to point to it if you think it exist but you won't find it because it's mostly speculation not science.

Epstein is not saying we shouldn't get of fossil fuels he is saying we shouldn't do it before we have a better alternative solar and wind is not that. They won't be delivering more than 2-3% even with heavy heavy investments and they are unreliable they are not clean. They are not solutions to getting of fossil fuel and that exactly the problem. So why on earht would any sany person support something that isn't going to solve the problem just because it's green if its not going to be able to deliver enough energy? That's a waste of taxpayer money which could be used for R&D into proper solutions. That's the problem. Even if we do everything that's in the paris agreement it's estimated that we will only be able to adjust the temperature with less than 1 degree. In what world is that a sane investment?

Better safe than sorry is not a useful argument. The majority of scientists are not saying what you think they are thats the point. They are saying all sorts of things which then get packaged into a catastrophist viewpoint through the media.

You are taking what the media says as truth not the scientists as they science do not make any such predictions what so ever it can't.

Even the person who is arguing against lindzen agrees that the idea of consensus is stupid it's not science.

Science is falsifiable the other thing is a mix of speculation and politics.

The real question you should be asking yourself is exactly what you are prepared to do to reduce carbon footprint. There is no solution out there that will get us off it or even reduce is drastically besides R&D no one is arguing against that.

So again what exactly are you worried about and how far are you prepared to go? You gonna go to war with china over coal plants? If not then it's purely gestures and you go into any government in the world and you will quickly realize that they don't really prioritize it as high as they say they do because they don't either know what exactly they should worry about and what to do about it.

I also try to have a wide variety of sources, hence why I asked you for your sources, since the oncce I found that argued against climate change being a threat were just weak opinions.

And you're right... I didn't play back my understanding correctly about Epstein. But all I'm saying is we could do more to accelerate and fund discovery of clean tech solutions. Oil for example gets so much more subsidies than renewable energy. We could adjust those levers, but it seems the political will isn't there.

A scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majority rule, so I don't think it's useless - scientific consensus is many different scientists from different backgrounds coming to a similar conclusion. This and meta-studies shouldn't be dismiised.

Why is 'better safe than sorry' not a useful argument? Maybe an apt analogy would be our health. Say for example a doctor says you're susceptible to a certain illness. To decrease the chances of getting that illness the doctor presents some things that have been shown to work in the past with other patients, but it hasn't been proven to work every time, because bodies are complex. I would certainly do those things to try to avoid that illness.

What I'm worried about is what if the consensus on man made climate change and its threat turn out to be true - in our lifetime sometime in this century. We don't really want to use our only habitat as a test lab to find out, because if it turns out the be true it will be too late.

That's why I think the climate models are not useless. Climate models are being used to predict crop yields for example. Yes, it's not 100% accurate but the confidence of a certain outcome is high. So those climate models that are being used to demonstrate global warming and its effect shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not verifiable.

What I'm doing is what some other people in this thread are doing, i.e. I don't consume animal products anymore, as it's not logical anymore to do and it's an ineffecient way to feed people. On top of that it's immoral, bad for the environment (cutting down forests and to have farmland, etc), bad for people working in that industry (e.g. would you want to kill and slaughter animals all day and breath in the air in a slaughterhouse?) and bad for your health (see dr neil barndard, dr greger, dr ellsworth etc). I use public transport, use my gadgets until they die or can't be repaired anymore, don't follow any fashion trends and buy higher quality clothes that lasts longer (i.e. not fast fashion).

Anyway, I think we've reached the end - usually it's better to debate these type of things face to face and this forum doesn't lend itself very well to long term debates - running out of space - almost reached the end of the right margin ;)

Thanks again for those links I'll checkout more stuff by Epstein and Lindzen and if you have any other sources or scientists who provide a counter argument then please feel free to share those.

RE: Being vegan is great for your consciousness and nothing else.

This will take another whole new post to explain, but I already hinted why not supporting the large meat industry (factory farming) is a good thing, it's not just for feeling good about oneself.

It's about not supporting an industry that is so destructive on so many level. You should watch this short talk by Ethan Brown (entrepreneur) offering real solutions: Beyond Meat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8jfiaLCPY and the 'Earthlings' documentary: https://www.nationearth.com/ to learn more about the large scale meat industry.

RE: I don't even know where to start on your claims about climate models but it just goes to show what I said before. You are not actually conducting in a scientific discussion but an ideological one.

Those are not my claims. Here is just a couple of examples how models are used:

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-effect-climate-crop-yields.htm... https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/node/50593

RE: If you truly believed what you are claiming you wouldn't be using your computer to discuss with strangers and a host of other things I am sure you are doing.

So if I don't live like pre-industrial people, I'm not reducing my carbon footprint? That's seems very black & white to me. Like I said it's gradual. I can live happily without meat. I can't live without a computer, as I wouldn't be able to do my job.

RE: That's why environmentalism is modern religion like Scientology

I think that's a bit strong. It's not that B&W. It's more on a spectrum, e.g. some environmentalists should probably be more open to newer and safe nuclear reactors or fusion tech.

RE: we can deal with these problems

Well, maybe we have the tech, but we weren't prepared, e.g. we couldn't really stop the fires in California or more severe floods and other extreme weather.

Anyway, I get what you're saying, i.e. there is no consensus on the dangers and effects on climate change. But I think you also have to use your common sense. There were other examples in this thread - people observing how things changed for the worse in their lifetime. Investing more heavily in cleantech now and being more serious about doing things which don't pollute and destroy our environment can only be a good thing.