Very few people are denying that the climate is changing. That’s not an interesting conversation to have, anyways.

There's broad disagreement about the role humans play in this process, and our ability to influence it one way or another in any meaningful way.

There's also broad disagreement about the efficacy and implementation of policies aimed at tackling climate change.

Can you provide a single link to a professional organization or group of relevant scientists that states humans are not causing global warming, or states that we cannot affect change? If there is “broad disagreement” it should be easy.

You probably know that there are several such organizations and scientists, many associated with conservative groups, but by including "professional" and "relevant" your question is biased towards what you consider professional (probably everything that considers global warming 100% man-made).

As Richard Feynman said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When there is a medially and politically forced consensus, it leads to "intellectual tyranny in the name of science".

One single scientist who disagrees with the notion that humans are primarily responsible for climate change would already show that there is no consensus, strictly speaking (Science is about questioning the majority belief). And there are hundreds of very reputable scientists who have disagreed with this over the years, and there is a lifely discussion around this, but those who control the political narratives make it appear there is none. Belief in the majority is not scientific, it's political.

So..you’re unable to provide a link?

The fact that you mention that contrary opinions regarding climate change are associated with a political group should be alarming to you.

A minority of scientists believe in a flat earth. Should we assume then that the world is flat? Or should we accept the incredibly strong consensus that the world is round?

> "Can you provide a single link to a professional organization or group of relevant scientists that states humans are not causing global warming, or states that we cannot affect change?"

If 90% of the human population on earth would just disappear tomorrow morning, would climate change just stop and become a non-issue? Or would it just be pushed back for a little while?

Please re-read my original comment.

I'm saying that there's disagreement about the degree to which humans are contributing to global warming, and can influence climate change, one way or another, in any meaningful way.

Sure, move the goal posts. Can you provide a link to any professional organization or group of relevant scientists that states climate change will continue at a dangerous rate even if humans immediately stop adding carbon to the atmosphere?

It's common knowledge taught in elementary school that earth goes through heating and cooling cycles.

Great! We both agree that there’s no way to stop the climate from changing then!

With that out of the way, the obvious next step is to prepare for the changes that’ll come and learn to live with it, instead of pretending like it can be stopped or even reversed by enacting more bullshit taxes on stuff, or by never eating steak.

You have clearly misread my comment. Care to try again? And once again, I urge you to post any reputable link to a group of relevant scientists supporting your view.

From so-called hackers, no less. This site has gone to hell over the last 5-10 years.

Oh no. People renowned for going against the grain go against the grain.

It's hardly going against the grain; ~40% of Americans don't believe in human-caused global warming, I just didn't expect much overlap with hackers who are usually so logical.

For example, 30% of Americans believe in astrology, but I would expect very few hackers on here do.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair

Most of the companies that HN looks up to are fueled by consumerism.

Why is it concerning? Why is what other people think a concern to you? No need to answer, its rhetorical, some non confrontational phrasing of "because I need them to behave the way I want them to behave in order to achieve my noble goals."

So you can't solve the problem yourself, you need the help of people who are uninterested in helping you or catastrophe awaits. There's no more perfect rationale as precursor to authoritarianism today.

Why cry over spilt milk? Go outside, enjoy life, the weather is nice. You can show me a million graphs from authoritative sources that demand respect in academic circles, so long as me and my lover can prance through a meadow picking wildflowers I'm not worried about it. I'd like to live in the real world for as much time as I have on this earth as I can. I can't save the world, I'd rather not get my blood pressure up looking at pie charts telling me I'm doomed, all I can do is accept that I live in a changing environment and enjoy the beauty of the world. It is still really beautiful out there you know.

When I see others buying into propaganda, and then voting for policy that will hasten the end of human kind, I get concerned. We're not crying over spilled milk; we're actively trying to stop the milk from continuing to pour all over the floor.

Your passive attitude, which equates to plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and shutting off your mind, is the same attitude that allows genocides to be committed while you "prance through a meadow".

To be clear, I go outside and enjoy life daily. The difference is that I accept the mountains of evidence that say we must, individually and collectively, adjust our way of living to preserve this benefit for our children. And no, the weather isn't always nice; the last several summers have been choked with wildfire smoke.