https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
There have certainly been very dramatic (all overly well reported) warnings representing a minority of researchers which have not been accurate. These should not invalidate the whole lot of predictions.
Those minimal predictions don't justify spending trillions of dollars on CO2 mitigation. They basically say "the climate is going to change, so be ready to deal with it".
Switching to low- and zero-carbon fuels, achieving greater efficiencies and so on, is expensive, but still a lot cheaper than e.g. moving coastal cities or engineering mega-projects to combat flooding, dealing with huge numbers of migrants, dealing with massive changes in agriculture, worse natural disasters, and so on.
Plus even if you deal with the effects for decades, your problem has not gone away. The situation is worse, and the planet is still heating.
Studies based on climate models that are overpredicting warming, plus economic and sociological models that have even less predictive power.
> moving coastal cities or engineering mega-projects to combat flooding
If your coastal city has a problem with sea level rising a couple of feet, your coastal city has already had a problem for a century or more, and you ignored it. How is that all of a sudden a climate emergency?
> your problem has not gone away
I've already said climate change is something we're always going to have to deal with, just as humans have had to deal with it during all of human history. The idea that we can magically stop the climate from changing ever again is ridiculous.
Models in general haven't overpredicted warming, as several people in this discussion have tried to educate you.
> If your coastal city has a problem with sea level rising a couple of feet, your coastal city has already had a problem for a century or more, and you ignored it.
I'm not at all clear what your point is here. It looks like you're arguing that because something is changing over the course of several decades it's not as much as a problem. Surely that can't be it though, because that makes no logical sense. From an economic sense it's just as expensive.
> The idea that we can magically stop the climate from changing ever again is ridiculous.
A strawman argument. That is not what I wrote.
The climate is changing faster by far than it has in all human history, and probably in the history of our planet.
Dealing with the effects is also much more difficult now compared to most of human history. When you have 7 or 8 billion people living on the planet, largely in huge cities, it's far more challenging.
It's just a lot easier and cheaper to avoid breaking something in the first place than it is to try to fix it afterwards.
Yes, they have. We're obviously not going to agree on this point.
> It looks like you're arguing that because something is changing over the course of several decades it's not as much as a problem.
No, I'm arguing that the problem is not new, and it's not a climate problem. It's a problem of misgovernment and has been around for quite a while. But that doesn't stop cities and countries to try to get the rest of us to pay for fixing it by trying to claim that it's a cimate problem.
> The climate is changing faster by far than it has in all human history, and probably in the history of our planet.
This is ludicrous. Nobody has the data to back this up, and there is plenty of data contradicting it.
> When you have 7 or 8 billion people living on the planet, largely in huge cities, it's far more challenging.
When the "problem" you're talking about is a degree of so of temperature rise and a foot or two of sea level rise over the course of a century, to call dealing with it "challenging" is an egregious misuse of language. This is simply not that big a deal compared to all the other things we humans have to deal with. And the things we will need to do anyway to deal with those far more challenging problems--like how to bring billions of people out of poverty and how to make our infrastructure more robust--will end up adapting us to the change anyway. If we're going to spend trillions of dollars on something, let's at least spend it on something that benefits everybody regardless of what happens with the climate, instead of on a huge CO2 mitigation boondoggle that will transfer a lot of money from your and my pockets to the pockets of politicians and "green" business executives, but won't actually help much of anything.
The data on this are so clear I don't really know where to start if you don't believe it. I feel your opposition on this issue is ideological, and there's no data that will change your mind.
> If we're going to spend trillions of dollars on something, let's at least spend it on something that benefits everybody
Given I think there's no arguing data with you, I'll try some arguments that might be more in line with what I guess your beliefs are.
Switching from fossil fuels brings huge benefits. Solar, wind, hydro, small nuclear plants etc. are much better for society.
Energy security increases if energy is produced locally. Democracies have less pressure to prop up dictatorships. Smaller countries are less at risk of getting bullied by larger countries.
Decentralisation of energy production makes the world more stable, less fragile. Energy policy can be set locally rather than centrally. Regions, communities, even individuals, can decide for themselves how to source their power. You can do that with e.g. solar power, but you can't do that with huge gas- or oil-powered plants.
Renewables are actually getting more cost-effective to use than fossil fuels. Government subsidies, direct and indirect, are distorting the market. End government support for fossil fuels and let the market free. There are huge opportunities for private enterprise in switching society to use the better technologies.
Air pollution is a huge killer. A study I saw yesterday showed dramatic increases in death from COVID-19 where air pollution was worse. Even in normal times, life expectancy and health quality is adversely affected by air pollution.
A switch to electric transport improves air pollution massively. There are also technical advantages to electric vehicles, such as improved reliability.
No, they're not. The data are a mess. Temperature records have been "adjusted" and the original raw data thrown away all over the place. I understand you don't believe this; I'm simply stating what I believe for the record. As I said, we're clearly not going to agree.
> I feel your opposition on this issue is ideological, and there's no data that will change your mind.
I have spent two decades now closely following the global warming/climate change alarmism issue. What I'm basing my statements on here is not ideological opposition to anything: it's the result of two decades of watching a long con in operation. And note carefully that this does not mean that I don't think the climate is changing or that I don't think we will need to do things to deal with climate change. It simply means that I do not trust the people or the institutions that are clamoring about catastrophe if we don't spend trillions of dollars to stop CO2 emissions now. Those people and institutions have no credibility with me after what I've seen them do for the past two decades, and what I've gone back and found out about what they did further back than that.
> Switching from fossil fuels brings huge benefits.
Agreed. But we don't have to spend trillions of dollars on CO2 mitigation to do that. We just have to, you know, switch. Spending money on CO2 mitigation (unless by "CO2 mitigation" you just mean "build more non-CO2 emitting power plants") hinders that, it doesn't help it.
I mostly agree with your points on energy security, decentralization, removing government distortions of the market (I think this is a good idea in every sphere, not just energy), and air pollution. Kudos to you for including small nuclear plants, btw; most people don't. The only caveats I would make are:
Decentralized power from solar or wind won't provide reliable base load power in many places, at least not without a solution to the energy storage problem that currently doesn't exist except for very small loads. You need small nuclear plants. Hydro by itself can't really be decentralized, since there are only a limited number of good locations for it and basically all of them are already developed. (Hydro in the form of pumped storage powered by solar or wind is a different matter; for many small scale needs that might be a viable solution to the energy storage problem.)
Electric transport is great, except for one mode: airplanes. I just don't see a viable alternative to liquid chemical fuels for airplanes any time soon. But that can be dealt with by using other energy sources to make liquid fuels, either by directly powering chemical reactions or by using living organisms like algae.
Which overpredicted the warming that has occurred from 1990 to now (though its predictions overall were certainly much milder than the catastrophic ones that are being trumpeted as reasons to spend trillions of dollars on CO2 mitigation).
Not to mention that there have been four more assessment reports since then (and the sixth is in the works now), and the more alarmist ones (in particular the third and fourth) are the ones that climate change alarmists are basing their predictions of catastrophe on. (Even though the fifth report actually backed off in some respects, particularly in admitting--though as obliquely as possible--that the climate model predictions were not matching the data.)
No, they're lower than the low end of the predicted range. Plus, the low end of the predicted range was based on assumed CO2 emissions that were significantly lower than what has actually occurred since then. So we have more CO2 than predicted and less warming than predicted even from the lower than actual CO2.
> even the low estimates still predict a 3C temperature rise by the end of the century
That's not 3C rise from where we are now. It's not even 3C rise from where we were in 1990. It's 3C rise from the "pre-industrial" temperature, i.e., the mid to late 1700s, i.e., in the middle of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have already risen (largely due simply to coming out of the Little Ice Age) by about 1.6C since then, so that low estimate is about 1.4C rise from now to 2100. And, as noted, actual temperature rise is running below the low end estimate. We're looking at roughly a degree C rise in a century. The idea that humans cannot adapt to that so we have to spend trillions of dollars to stop emitting CO2 right now is laughable.
> Just because some of the 6 or 7C predictions (high end of range) don't appear to be coming true we should just ignore the rest of the models?
We should not be using the models to drive public policy decisions with multi-trillion dollar costs. They're simply not good enough for that.
Yes it is, if taken seriously.
If the prediction is "we can expect a serious epidemic once every 10 years", then we have something definite that we can plan for, or at least discuss the costs of planning for. There's no way to discuss the costs of planning for "this will happen, some time in the future" without more detail.
Which has largely happened in a lot of areas...
except for the people who think the correct response is to ignore any prediction that isn't perfectly specific?
That would be nice, yes.
> except for the people who think the correct response is to ignore any prediction that isn't perfectly specific?
If a prediction isn't giving you any useful, actionable information, you can't act on it.
That doesn't necessarily mean you do nothing. If our public policy decision is "well, we don't really know how often epidemics like this will occur, but just to ballpark, let's plan on one every 10 years and see what we would need to do to prepare", that's fine. Just don't say we need to do that because the experts made a prediction. It's just a best judgment call based on very incomplete information.
None of these "experts" have a track record of correct predictions that justifies taking their current predictions seriously. Remember we are not talking about the fact that the climate changes: yes, it does, it always has, and it always will (unless at some point in the distant future we learn how to control it accurately). We are talking about the dire predictions of catastrophe that have been made to try to justify spending many trillions of dollars on CO2 mitigation. Those predictions have never come true.
> Epidemiologists told everyone for a decade and a half this would happen, but here we are.
To know whether these were useful predictions, we would need to know more details. Did they predict when it would happen? Did they predict how it would spread? A prediction that "this will happen, some time in the future" is not very useful. AFAIK no epidemiologists were making predictions much more precise than that.
Looking at the actual frequency of epidemics of various sizes in the past, we might very roughly estimate that we will have one serious enough to involve a significant portion of health care resources once every decade or so. But you don't have to be an epidemiologist to do that; you just have to do the simplest possible extrapolation of the data. We had H1N1 about 10 years ago, and SARS about 18 years ago. That's still not a very strong prediction, but it would seem to be as good a basis for public policy discussion (which is to say, a fairly weak one but not negligible) as anything more complicated that has come from epidemiologists.