Are you not concerned because you think current mainstream-science overestimates the consequences [1]? Or do you just believe that climate change will have little effect on you, personally?
[1]: Flooding, biodiversity loss, food production yield, increase in regions and days/year with human-lethal outside temperatures (see relevant graphs in "summary for policymakers" around pg 16)
Climate activists have been declaring impending doom for years. So much so that it has become an entire industry. NOAA has even altered historical data (eg. https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-cl...) to support their ridiculous claims. And when the rise of temperatures didn't meet "expectations" they just moved the goal post. Used to Wikipedia actually had an article for "Global Warming". Where did it go? Ah yes, now moved to "Climate Change". See how that works? Bottom line, do the activities of humans have some effect on the environment? Yes, of course, but it's minuscule compared with the impact that natural forces have on it (volcanoes, solar activity, etc).
> Climate activists have been declaring impending doom for years.
What are those "declarations of doom" specifically? What are you actually talking about?
From my point of view, climate development went pretty much as predicted >40 years ago-- there is absolutely ZERO reason to assume that the greenhouse effect is somehow a collective hallucination or much weaker than we think.
If you look at their predictions, made >40 years ago, then these match the actual development pretty well, and these first papers also said basically the very same stuff that climate scientist are saying right now (but with less detail).
So again, what are these goalposts that have been moved?
> Bottom line, do the activities of humans have some effect on the environment? Yes, of course, but it's minuscule compared with the impact that natural forces have on it (volcanoes, solar activity, etc).
So your point is that both greenhouse effect and human CO2 emissions happen as described, but ALL of mainstream science is completely wrong about the effect size? What gives you ANY confidence in this?
IF your theory is "climate change is a collective hallucination, all data supporting it is fudged" then this would give some easily falsifiable predictions:
- There should be no change in longer term median temperatures: This is simply not the case-- the trend is in most places ALREADY obvious enough that you can see it by simply taking an arbitrary city and looking at the annual mean temperature.
- All currently observable effects from temperature change should have occured similarly in the recent past (sea level/glaciers). This is even more obviously not the case (see e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03805-8 for a random source on this)
Your link is pretty much complaining that adjustments to historical temperature data are somewhat intransparent and hard to reproduce-- but that does not even come close to support the theory of "climate change not real".
> Used to Wikipedia actually had an article for "Global Warming". Where did it go? Ah yes, now moved to "Climate Change".
> What are those "declarations of doom" specifically? What are you actually talking about?
Well just look at the kind of debates that were going on even back in the 90's, so much talk about total melting of ice caps, sea levels rising to catastrophic levels, unrelentingly sweltering summers. A veritable apocalypse on the horizon, basically.
> From my point of view, climate development went pretty much as predicted >40 years ago-- there is absolutely ZERO reason to assume that the greenhouse effect is somehow a collective hallucination or much weaker than we think.
Maybe an over-reaction would be a more succinct way to describe it. Huge political decisions, past, present, and future are being influenced by the hysteria surrounding this "climate change crisis".
> If you look at their predictions, made >40 years ago, then these match the actual development pretty well, and these first papers also said basically the very same stuff that climate scientist are saying right now (but with less detail).
> So again, what are these goalposts that have been moved?
I do concede that the work of Hansen et al is rather compelling. The CO2 predictions were indeed spot on.
The goalposts I was referring to are the claims being made to push certain agendas. When temperature changes turned out to be arguably much milder than expected, the political discussion turned from "global warming" to "climate change". (Soon it will be "climate variability"?)
> So your point is that both greenhouse effect and human CO2 emissions happen as described, but ALL of mainstream science is completely wrong about the effect size? What gives you ANY confidence in this?
> IF your theory is "climate change is a collective hallucination, all data supporting it is fudged" then this would give some easily falsifiable predictions:
> - There should be no change in longer term median temperatures: This is simply not the case-- the trend is in most places ALREADY obvious enough that you can see it by simply taking an arbitrary city and looking at the annual mean temperature.
Again, I am not arguing that humans have had no effect on the environment whatsoever. But I do think that the whole thing has been overblown somewhat.
