4 ms·

Create a company that deals with some of the consequences. Before you do that though, I would urge you to spend some more time looking into what people are say

Create a company that deals with some of the consequences. Before you do that though, I would urge you to spend some more time looking into what people are saying on both sides. I did and it made me realize that there is a certain kind of "climate alarmist" fraction of the environmental movement that's a far cry from the more balances actual views and that they, unfortunately, are boosted by the media quite a lot probably because media likes catastrophes. 3 things I learned which made it click for me. 1) The so-called "climate deniers" aren't denying there is climate change, they aren't even denying humans affect the climate some degree. What they say is that climate is always changing and that the degree to which humans are affecting the climate isn't as clear as the most alarmist would like you to believe. 2) The 97% consensus is extremely misleading and you will find that the questions asked put the so-called climate deniers into the same bucket of the consensus because of what I mentioned in one. There is however not 97% certainty with regards to how much humans affect. The IPCC numbers are all over the map and they ex have to adjust the heat down over time. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 3) You will not be able to get anyone to give you a straight answer when it comes to how much humans affect the environment and that's because there isn't any clear answers. So educate yourself then decide what to do after that.

andygates 9y ago
There really aren't 'both sides' to this. There's as much scientific controversy as there is over gravity or evolution. The deniers used to deny there was change ("it's cycles!"). Then they denied it was humans (it really is, attribution is getting good). They're denying it's bad ("CO2 is plant food!"); and once things get really in train, they'll be denying ever being warned by those mean old scientists.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Yes there really are and not just two but many. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest numbers from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 I don't know about you but I see a range, a wide range. It IS cycles, it's always been cycles historically and the climate is always changing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.... The discussion is not whether humans have an effect but how much. Again no certainty even closely resembling evolution. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-... But you can take the same argument and turn it against the climate alarmist. First, they said new york would be under water by now. Then, they said the temperature was rising rapidly (but they had to adjust that claim down quite dramatically) Then, they said the oceans are getting toxicated. There is no clear consensus on this. We might or might not effect the climate more or less than we think. But try and find any official number for how much humans affect the climate and you will be very dissapointed. Science is not about certainty it's about testing hypothesis. The way climate scientist teste them is by using computer models. That's nowhere close to providing us with the scientific evidence and testability of gravity. And evolution is a model, the best model we have to explain the evolution of species there is a lot of discussion inside of evolution. Trying to close down any dissent or argument simply by saying there is nothing to discuss because science, is the most anti scientific thing you can do IMO.
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    They said New York would be under water by now, so we took steps back then to limit emissions, and that never came to pass.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Ok, can you provide any sources for that claim?
      - jschwartzi 9y ago
        Are you familiar with CAFE? Or the EPA in general? You were the one who made that statement about New York being underwater. Find me a date and a quote and I'll tell you exactly how things changed afterward. The point I'm trying to make is that we've already taken steps to limit impact which is why the apocalyptic scenarios of yesteryear haven't come to pass.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly Professor Peter Wadhams "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm And here is Al Gores predictions https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/ https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

andygates 9y ago

There really aren't 'both sides' to this. There's as much scientific controversy as there is over gravity or evolution. The deniers used to deny there was change ("it's cycles!"). Then they denied it was humans (it really is, attribution is getting good). They're denying it's bad ("CO2 is plant food!"); and once things get really in train, they'll be denying ever being warned by those mean old scientists.

ThomPete 9y ago
Yes there really are and not just two but many. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest numbers from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 I don't know about you but I see a range, a wide range. It IS cycles, it's always been cycles historically and the climate is always changing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.... The discussion is not whether humans have an effect but how much. Again no certainty even closely resembling evolution. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-... But you can take the same argument and turn it against the climate alarmist. First, they said new york would be under water by now. Then, they said the temperature was rising rapidly (but they had to adjust that claim down quite dramatically) Then, they said the oceans are getting toxicated. There is no clear consensus on this. We might or might not effect the climate more or less than we think. But try and find any official number for how much humans affect the climate and you will be very dissapointed. Science is not about certainty it's about testing hypothesis. The way climate scientist teste them is by using computer models. That's nowhere close to providing us with the scientific evidence and testability of gravity. And evolution is a model, the best model we have to explain the evolution of species there is a lot of discussion inside of evolution. Trying to close down any dissent or argument simply by saying there is nothing to discuss because science, is the most anti scientific thing you can do IMO.
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  They said New York would be under water by now, so we took steps back then to limit emissions, and that never came to pass.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Ok, can you provide any sources for that claim?
    - jschwartzi 9y ago
      Are you familiar with CAFE? Or the EPA in general? You were the one who made that statement about New York being underwater. Find me a date and a quote and I'll tell you exactly how things changed afterward. The point I'm trying to make is that we've already taken steps to limit impact which is why the apocalyptic scenarios of yesteryear haven't come to pass.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly Professor Peter Wadhams "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm And here is Al Gores predictions https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/ https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/