Science can show putting carbon into a lab created atmosphere can create a greenhouse warming effect as the carbon molecules prevent some heat from returning to space. In higher concentrations (levels we could never get to) the effect becomes more pronounced and “runaway”.
But the science does not show major consequences or catastrophe. That part is conjecture and speculation and a critical analysis of it is necessary.
You see, modeling climate is fraught with error and isn’t actually science as it isn’t falsifiable. That isn’t to say some models are useful but they’re far closer to opinion than objective fact. One only has to look at models from 25 years ago to see how wrong many were. There’s also the problem that climatologists are incentivized to project dire consequences as this gets funded because it gets reported on and creates political power. The world ending in a ball of fire is more interesting than suggesting things that could change will be manageable. Color me skeptical indeed.
I don’t keep a portfolio of opinions on the matter but read a variety of them. And there is a noticeable trend of climatologists who were dire 20 years ago being less so today. I think the article attached here for example exemplifies this. The hysteria from climate doomers is not the voice to listen to.
I don't care what you do or do not keep a portfolio of. I'm asking you to source your claims. So far you have refused to back up anything you've said.
We know that the earth is heating up (I'm sure you've seen the graphs). We know it's antrophogenic. You denying it doesn't make it less true.
And which climate scientists have been projecting that the world will end in a ball of fire in the near future??? I've heard of projections of sea level rise, more frequent droughts, more frequent wildfires, more frequent and more severe heat waves, higher ocean temperatures, etc, but I haven't heard of these "the earth will end in a ball of fire" projections you're talking about. Can you link to some?
Climate change being a fact or not doesn’t really mean that we are in a crisis or catastrophe or whatever other type of adjective climate doomers like. Al Gores 2006 movie has mainly played out wrong as most models do. And for things that could happen we aren’t really sure if they’d be bad necessarily. And if bad what is the timeline and how else can we manage?
The doomers saying we need to act now or else sound like bad used car salesmen.
My point is it’s good to be skeptical of the models that spell doom. They likely have political motivations and are unlikely.
Can you stop throwing out unsubstantiated claims and back anything up? Show something which indicates that some significant portion of climate researchers believe climate change won't have a big impact.
It’s written by Judith Curry who has tons of cited work. Searching quickly unveils much more and it’s easy to do. But you don’t want to.
Hey I get it - you’re religious about it and can’t possibly take an objective scientific approach to the analysis. Dogma works that way. Many have been hooked on the mania and meaning it brings to their lives. That’s up to you.
Dude I'm just asking for studies backing up your position. You can't provide that, and I'm starting to think it's because it doesn't exist. I'm not gonna buy and read some non-peer-reviewed book by some random person. I'm sure this one person is the fringe "climate change isn't a big deal" climatologist, I know those exist, reading their book won't convince me that they're not on the fringe which is what this whole conversation is about.
I'm done here. Keep living in your fantasy bubble where climate change is no big deal, keep ignoring the 99.9% of climate scientists who say it's a big deal; after all you have a book from the 0.01% to back you up. I clearly won't convince you about anything, and you certainly wont convince me by pointing to non-peer-reviewed writings from individuals in that 0.01%. The fact that that's the best you've got is evidence enough.
OK, cool. I think you live in a delusional world and that's OK because that's your choice. That you choose to live with needless anxiety about an imaginary catastrophe that probably won't happen is your choice. .01% lol - I don't even know where you get these numbers but I imagine you listen to some climate doomer thing that puts silly ideas like that into your head. But hey, you sure are convinced you know something here. But, you do understand how science works, right? I still can't tell.
Hint: Fitting data to your preconceived conclusion isn't science. And we all saw how this happens in Climategate.
But the science does not show major consequences or catastrophe. That part is conjecture and speculation and a critical analysis of it is necessary.
You see, modeling climate is fraught with error and isn’t actually science as it isn’t falsifiable. That isn’t to say some models are useful but they’re far closer to opinion than objective fact. One only has to look at models from 25 years ago to see how wrong many were. There’s also the problem that climatologists are incentivized to project dire consequences as this gets funded because it gets reported on and creates political power. The world ending in a ball of fire is more interesting than suggesting things that could change will be manageable. Color me skeptical indeed.
I don’t keep a portfolio of opinions on the matter but read a variety of them. And there is a noticeable trend of climatologists who were dire 20 years ago being less so today. I think the article attached here for example exemplifies this. The hysteria from climate doomers is not the voice to listen to.