3 ms·

Providing links is not a question of proving anything but simply sourcing the claims I make so they can be verified and allow people to check them and make thei

Providing links is not a question of proving anything but simply sourcing the claims I make so they can be verified and allow people to check them and make their own idea. A 1+ hour video debate without transcript is the worst possible thing. Not only it is a privacy nightmare because google but also a waste of time and energy. I'd rather read text than watch video because it is much faster, easier to understand and simpler to use (not ctrl + f to jump to a specific part of a video). So sorry but I don't have time to spend in watching this video. Why don't you write the counter arguments addressing all the points I raised instead ?

ThomPete 9y ago
What's the difference between asking others to read a bunch of links vs. asking them to watch a video? My source is both sides debating you, on the other hand, is only showing evidence to support your claims. Here is one of the people from the first link you provided. From Hansens "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save the Planet" The dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago. Sorry about that mistake. It does not always work that way. Sometimes our estimates are off in the other direction, and the problem is not as bad as we thought. Not this time. Then only to turn around later: Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries. The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future. The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-g... Just one example and I could give many others of the claims of catastrophes not living up to the scaremongering. That is exactly what makes people like me skeptical. Hyped alarmist claims which then turn out to be not even close to true once you dig into it. Everyone agrees that climate is changing also the "Catastrophe skeptics", everyone even agrees that humans have an effect, what they don't agree on is how much. Try and find one source that tells you exactly how much humans affect or exactly the temperature. The links from the IPCC gives a wide range. How do you know what you think about the climate is true?

ThomPete 9y ago

What's the difference between asking others to read a bunch of links vs. asking them to watch a video? My source is both sides debating you, on the other hand, is only showing evidence to support your claims. Here is one of the people from the first link you provided. From Hansens "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save the Planet" The dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago. Sorry about that mistake. It does not always work that way. Sometimes our estimates are off in the other direction, and the problem is not as bad as we thought. Not this time. Then only to turn around later: Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries. The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future. The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-g... Just one example and I could give many others of the claims of catastrophes not living up to the scaremongering. That is exactly what makes people like me skeptical. Hyped alarmist claims which then turn out to be not even close to true once you dig into it. Everyone agrees that climate is changing also the "Catastrophe skeptics", everyone even agrees that humans have an effect, what they don't agree on is how much. Try and find one source that tells you exactly how much humans affect or exactly the temperature. The links from the IPCC gives a wide range. How do you know what you think about the climate is true?