Your second bit is a non-sequitur. Climate change is not a simple factor of how many trees there are, and no one claims that to be the case.

>the people pushing the green new deal are doomsday Sayers predicting "crisis" in 12 years.

They are saying we have 12 years to drastically reduce carbon emissions. If we don't the results of which will be seen in the following decades. I would expect NASA would agree with this just like every other reputable scientific organization.

[edit] Formatting

From the Article: The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia. The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.

> they are more religious than some religious people about their science.

There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence.

If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.

You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes.

But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Because there is apple evidence all around us and yet you seem determined not to see it, so what would change you mind? If nothing then there's really no point having a discussion.

[1]. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

apple -> ample

Climate and weather are different things.

I totally agree that it's terrible some pepole are "weaponizing" weather for political gain by claiming that occasional cold weather in the winter is a disproof of a warming climate -- is that what you are referring to?

Because that's terrible science. Even if it sounds skeptical.

using Orwellian newspeak to change words to match your "scientific" agenda should be considered an attack on science and not regurgitated by people who believe the agenda. no conspiracy, they don't hide the manipulation

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

well aware climate and weather are different and so is the Green New Deal leader who was schooled last week https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968

seriously do the legwork and publish, then you won’t be a conspiracy theorist

Were the scientist hired by Exxon in the 70’s also participating in this political scheme?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

I’d love to hear how the sceptics turn this fact in to present day politics.

Policy seems to be the only way we can sort this future mess out btw.

Well the scientist gave word, and the Exxon board covered it up, so... yes please!

Preferably policy is made based on facts and common sense.

If you’ve ever worked a reasonably complex system I’m sure you’ll agree that minuscule changes or additions can have unforeseen and sometimes devastating consequences.

In large systems of complexity you usually end up with really weird, cascading issues. Things triggering other things, hitting edges etc.

I don’t think I ever worked anything remotely as complex a system as the earth (or... have I?), but looking at the graphs of co2 since the beginning of industrialization it’s quite clear we are making massive changes to a system that have had many thousands of years to get in tune.

Couple this with the fact that almost all experts in related fields seem to agree that the changes we’re seeing will be destructive and also difficult to mitigate you have something that just simply makes sense.

It would be utterly foolish not to make policy of it.

The "12 years" figure comes from here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/

> C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).

This report came out in late 2018. As of the publishing of this report, in order to keep global average temperature increase under 1.5°C, CO2 emissions must fall to 45% of 2010 levels in 12 years.

There has been a predictable amount of misstating what this report actually says by environmentalists with poor reading comprehension, and a similar amount of bad-faith readings and intentional obfuscation by climate science deniers, but in any case, this is the source of the "12 years" figure that's been going around.

Nobody is "predicting doomsday in 12 years", but you can set your clock by the outpouring of bad faith "I Told You So"s that will occur in October of 2030 when the world has not ended.

My prediction: In 2030 the people denying climate change now will say "Of course everyone believed in anthropogenic climate change! It was only some flat-earthers that denied it was happening. Don't blame us! We tried to do something but the lefties wouldn't let us build nuclear power. Its actually all their fault"

In Germany this already started.

Of course, it's greener, plants are made from carbon. What you don't realize is that the biosphere puts as much carbon back in the atmosphere from respiration and fire as it puts in. In other words, it's greener but there are also bigger fires. Also, it's greener for now, but temperatures are changing so fast now that likely most plants won't keep up.