Articles like these help change my mind.
Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk.
Point is, condescending remarks only push people away from your cause. Why would you want to do that?
I would assume there’s also a correlation between the “don’t do anything about climate change” folks and limited government/capitalist beliefs. All of those beliefs seem distinct but they all have aligned incentives to keep the economic status quo.
I’m not trying to be condescending towards that side either, I know it’s true for myself too. I generally support change that shifts power away from the powerful, so I was always going to support something like the green new deal over a privatized solution.
Edited for clarity
There's very little doubt C02 does increase the holding of heat. There's also very little doubt the earth has gotten slightly warmer over the past century.
Where I become skeptical is in the modeling and predictions. More heat means more evaporation means more cloud cover means less heat but clouds hold heat held in. The earth tilts slightly on it's axis. Energy output from the sun varies. There are so many interacting factors. "Butterfly effect" and all.
Then you throw politics and redistribution-ism and media sensationalism on top of it all and wow what a stinky mess.
Suffice it to say I personally don't think global catastrophe is imminent from C02. Not convinced at all. I lived through the ice age scare (here's Leonard Nimoy talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0) and the start of the global warming alarm in the late 80's (which just didn't pan out as many expected 30+ years later). So I don't trust the ability to model long term climate changes and present it in an objective and non political fashion.
But I do believe humans are affecting the climate and from caution we should reduce C02 as we reasonably can without starving millions to death. It's cleaner anyway and fossil fuels are just nasty in other respects and they are limited.
Am I an illiterate unscientific "denier"? An oil company shill? Nope. Just a guy who has seen nonsense hype cycles which this certainly resembles come and go.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wildfires-...
See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l...
From 2018:
> During its review, the Commission found that California’s forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire.
https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-ma...
Thanks for the honesty. Here's some more.
Some of us don't care about your feelings at this point. It is past time for talking. There are always people with perverse incentives, or deeply held beliefs or grudges, who are unreachable. Screw 'em, it is time for action. If they want to argue, they can argue with each other.
Good luck on your "action". Isn't going to be much in the end I'd wager and the experiment will play out.
Fortunately for all of us the end effects on humanity are probably well over stated.
There's a distressing pattern: the idea that "man made climate change exists, therefore disaster."
The "disaster" part is the part I've never truly been able to convince myself of. I don't deny it -- you're right, it's more along the lines of agnosticism. But I think it's really easy to convince yourself of doom.
However, striving to be something resembling a scientist, I recognize that being ignorant is no defense. I haven't spent enough time researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments. But every time I see a piece like this pop up, I feel this reflexive urge to question people and chase down the logic: Ok, climate change exists. How do you know we need to care?
I'm not saying we don't. I just wish people would admit "We don't really know, but it would be a good idea to take a few precautionary steps" rather than take the stance of "you're something close to Satan if you dare believe otherwise."
> I don't deny it
So, you're not a climate change denier
That was a reasonable stance in the 1970s. We have a ton more evidence now.
> I just wish people would admit "We don't really know"
Surely somebody has spent time "researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments"? Why are you so sure they should "admit" that they don't really know? Especially when so many have come out and said that they do?
[0]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/05/17/mo...
The temperature difference between now and the last ice age, at a time there was 3km of ice over much of the northern hemisphere, and sea level was 120 below current average, was 5°C. Current predictions for the temperature increase in 2100 range from 2°C, if we make a huge effort to quickly and drastically reduce CO2 emissions, to 5°C if we keep going as we are. The reality will be somewhere between, I'll let you decide what you think is likely. We don't know exactly what the consequences are gonna be, but we know they're going to be dramatic, and if you think they won't affect you personally, you're probably wrong.
This cuts both ways, depending how your phrase the assumption.
Which of these statements should we assume false, until proven true:
"Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization."
"Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization."
Philosophy isn't going to rescue us from this. Climate science will.
Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed.
The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions.
I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment.
https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...
What didn't we lose?
Do you require water to function? How about food?
Again, I think the climate is changing. And I think it will continue to change in ways that adversely affect humanity.
And yet we're making enormous policy changes with them.
So one, I don't think it's worth trying to use these models for policy. Two, sea level rise has only been 1-3 mm per year since the sixties, temp about 0.08 degrees centigrade per decade. Easily adaptable.
You can also look at the IPCC reports themselves where they admit to model "limitations". Also note the confidence level their far out proclaimations are made with. It is typically "moderate" or "low". The news pieces rarely make mention of this confidence level though.
There are plenty of articles debunking his points as outdated strawman arguments, e.g. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-a...
The problem IMHO is, the climate science community doesn't connect the dots between warming -> unstable weather -> widespread upheaval.
Also, what evidence does each side present, and how credible is this evidence?
Just relating what I do.
You helped me through a very hard time in my life a few years back, and I have thought about you often since then. Thank you. Glad to see you back here!
In my opinion, people should be less accepting of stupidity like this. There are opinions that should not be accepted so condescension is the wrong approach, rejection and ostracization are the ones that are right in my opinion.