3 ms·

I am in the same boat. I don't even know why I have to be called a climate change denier or skeptic. The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing

I am in the same boat. I don't even know why I have to be called a climate change denier or skeptic. The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing to prove it. As to say, it is not my job to disprove something that hasn't been proved. Now obviously there is "proof" in circulation. But what is it proving? Have any prediction targets been met at all? How much will the sea tides rise and when? How much would have they risen given natural cycles? Even if man mad emissions weren't affecting the temperature would a climate scientist be able to predict the temperature 5 years from now? Nasa has a few articles about how Earth is much greener than 40 years ago due to global warming -> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/3/graphic-warmer-earth-greener-north/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/3/graphic-warmer-... Are we simply waiting for this new vegetation to mature and reduce carbon emissions? Is anyone factoring in potential plant growth? Could they even measure that? Maybe the earth knows how to naturally cycle? As I've aged, all I have seen is men make futile predictions about everything under the sun. The more and more variables and extrapolations added to a problem generally leads to an exponentially bad answer. I'm sure anyone who works in a job that does heavy spread sheet work can twist any bunch of numbers to fit a departments desired figure. Furthermore, the mass fervour of the world for climate change should induce skepticism. Where is everyone getting their sources from? Arguments such as: "Think about the children" "Save the planet" Are typically go to answers of people who can't make a real point. Now it is not anyone's fault that they should act hysterical, the authority that is trickling down all this information should be a bit more out spoken. The media also needs to drop the term "experts" and "scientists". I'd just like to know, in 10 years from now, if carbon emissions were at 19th century level, what would be the temperature be? and at our current rate of carbon emission what will the temperature be? With what degree of accuracy will the figure hold up to? Other then reducing man made emissions, what other planetary behaviour will also reduce carbon emissions? Can they be predicted and have you included them in the report? Not even going to bother with the political aspect of this all, which actually may well be the majority of this movement. If I truely believed climate change were a real problem for the world, as the above posted said, I would be going after all the billion person populations first and foremost.

jbattle 7y ago
I'm going to assume you are posting in good faith but to give you an honest answer I have a hard time engaging with posts like this because it reads like you've done no work to inform yourself. > I'd just like to know, in 10 years from now, if carbon emissions were at 19th century level, what would be the temperature be? and at our current rate of carbon emission what will the temperature be? With what degree of accuracy will the figure hold up to? People have written literally thousands of pages that would answer this question. There are hundreds of pages that give a more accessible overview of the research. It would take you less than a minute to start reading some of this Five years ago when questions like this popped up I would dutifully take the 10 minutes to pull together some links that directly addressed the question. > The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing to prove it I don't disagree. But once the people who believe the climate is changing have written millions of words explaining what they believe is happening, surely there is some onus on internetposterN to read some of that before dismissing the entirety of the enterprise by raising a few questions
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
I agree with you generally about the hubris of people, even highly educated, re: the ability to forecast the future. And even accepting the predictions of various reports, etc. it's not completely clear that the world will be as bad as most are saying. We're richer than ever, all forecasts seem to point to a better world where even under the threat of climate change we'd be better off to cope with it than in any other timeline or point in history.

jbattle 7y ago

I'm going to assume you are posting in good faith but to give you an honest answer I have a hard time engaging with posts like this because it reads like you've done no work to inform yourself. > I'd just like to know, in 10 years from now, if carbon emissions were at 19th century level, what would be the temperature be? and at our current rate of carbon emission what will the temperature be? With what degree of accuracy will the figure hold up to? People have written literally thousands of pages that would answer this question. There are hundreds of pages that give a more accessible overview of the research. It would take you less than a minute to start reading some of this Five years ago when questions like this popped up I would dutifully take the 10 minutes to pull together some links that directly addressed the question. > The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing to prove it I don't disagree. But once the people who believe the climate is changing have written millions of words explaining what they believe is happening, surely there is some onus on internetposterN to read some of that before dismissing the entirety of the enterprise by raising a few questions

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

I agree with you generally about the hubris of people, even highly educated, re: the ability to forecast the future. And even accepting the predictions of various reports, etc. it's not completely clear that the world will be as bad as most are saying. We're richer than ever, all forecasts seem to point to a better world where even under the threat of climate change we'd be better off to cope with it than in any other timeline or point in history.