[chiefalchemist]

> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially"

Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians.

I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers" My sense those people are very few. That is, flat out deniers are few. Most everyone else sees it coming. The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural).

Even if we settle on why (which we won't), it seems to me Amtrak, etc. are still going to be impacted. At some point we need to focus on the ends, and let the means go.

Note: I realize that __if__ we settle on human-made there is, at least in theory, opportunity to slow the change. I understand that. My faith breaks down on ever being able to agree on why. It's as if the building is on fire and we're so busy debating why the fire started that we've forgotten we still need to do something about the fire.

[belorn]

Like you I see very few climate-change deniers, here or elsewhere. I see instead most disagreement and heavy discussion on what to do and what is the most efficient way to go forward. I have gotten many downvotes in the past referencing the recent study that listed "the most effective individual steps to tackle climate change", since it lists car ownership as being worse than eating meat.

I would therefore say that the debate is on what action that both individually and as a society that needs to be done. Abolishing coal mining vs replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants, car ownership vs vegetarianism, carbon tax vs bans, and so on. We are collectively so divided that even if we all mostly agree that climate-change exists and is directly caused by us humans we can still not agree on what to do next.

[recusancy]

> "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)."

There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"

[PhasmaFelis]

There are still people who insist that the whole thing is made up. See "40 years ago they predicted global cooling!", "It was below freezing last night, so much for global warming!", etc., etc.

They're getting rarer, though. As the evidence piles up, more and more of them are switching to "global warming is real but it's nobody's fault and there's definitely nothing we can or should do about it."

[ams6110]

I don't think it's made up but I think there's a good chance we're wrong about the cause. The theory is not falsifiable. There are too many interacting variables. The models have all been fit to the data and not vice versa. We've been wrong about other things that were universally accepted as true (e.g. dietary fat is bad) and later turned out to be wrong.

Doesn't really matter what I think though. I'm one person, not in a position of influence, and my beliefs and behavior on the matter are inconsequential.

I don't think that moving away from coal and petroleum is bad though. Those are dirty, polluting energy sources. I think we should be developing nuclear and electrically powred transportation and battery technology. So either way, I support moving away from burning fossil fuels.

[mirimir]

> The models have all been fit to the data and not vice versa.

How else could it work? This is a system that's vastly too complicated to actually model from fundamental principles. Or at least, in any simple way. As I understand it, the components are all based on fundamental principles. But they're tweaked as needed to fit historical data.

[thaumasiotes]

The valid way for it to work would be to test the model's ability to predict the future. You make your models, collect data, and then reject models that couldn't accommodate reality.

This isn't done, particularly in climate science, because it's slow and difficult, but "model validation is slow and difficult" doesn't add validity to invalid models.

[mirimir]

Of course it's done! For one thing, you don't need to fit your model to the full historical record. So you can use more recent data to validate models fit to older data. It's like training AI.

But yes, models fit to the full historical record can only be validated in real time.

[Scaevolus]

Impugning the broad base of climate science by comparing it to some garbage results from dietary research is unfair.

[windexh8er]

Just to be clear, dietary fat is not good as implied by your statement:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIR.000000000000...

[amanaplanacanal]

Nah, that's BS. It's an argument from authority, there is no actual science done in that paper.

Now if they actually took people, and replaced saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fat, holding other variables constant, then measured whether they lived longer, they'd have something. But they haven't done that.

Their reasoning is that this measure of blood lipids is associated with CVD, so if we do something that lowers that measure of blood lipids, it will also lower the incidence of CVD. That's just bad science, and they should know better.

[the8472]

> The theory is not falsifiable.

That is fundamentally wrong. At the worst you would have to run an experiment with many earth-replicas and individual changed variables. Quite impractical but not relevant for determining falsifiability of a theory.

But more importantly models don't just have to fit data of the past, they also make predictions of the future which will automatically be tested as time advances. And pretty much all climate models do not make a singular prediction they map some input domain to an output domain. Decrease factor A by x% and the global averages of effect M will stay within some confidence interval with the mean y% lower etc.

Of course it is complex, but complexity is no excuse to throw up your arms and claim we can't possibly know anything when it's inconvenient.

[hexane360]

The thing is, it's not a debate against people who are well informed and honestly think the above (or outright denial). It's against lobbyists who will say anything to prevent regulation, and the uninformed who repeat whatever they heard last from those lobbyists (or some false middle ground between science and lobbyists).

Whatever actual argument is stated (geologic, sun cycles, not happening, no big deal), the end objective is the same: we shouldn't do anything about it.

[jacobolus]

There’s a team of guys with flamethrowers running around the house lighting everything on fire, and some of the inhabitants are saying “well you can’t discount the possibility that the fires started themselves, and having a house on fire isn’t really so bad, and we probably can’t do anything to fix it anyway.”

And now you are standing up for them.

Our problems cannot be summarized as “higher waters”. We are talking about not just sea-level rise displacing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people, but also lethal heat waves every summer in many parts of the world, permanent severe drought in some places, raging wildfires, severe storms, collapse of many ecosystems, collapse of agriculture in many places, etc.

[chiefalchemist]

"And now you are standing up for them."

Um. That's not what I said. Not at all. Please re-read the Note: at the end and my (lack of) faith in human nature. I'm not defending anyone. But by the time we get done running around in circles and settle on what punched a whole on the bottom of the boat, we're going to be water-above-head. Is that not what we're seeing? Still?

As for "higher waters", the original article was about water levels and Amtrak. I stuck to that. If you want you make the problem bigger and even more overwhelming, sure, we can go your route. But from what I've seen that kitchen-sink approach - again see the Note: - isn't working out well. At some point we have to come to terms with what isn't working, and try another approach.

I agree with you (sans the "standing up for them" bit). But I'm far less naive, far less trusting of human nature.

[mirimir]

Funny :)

But we're all running around with flamethrowers. And we can't imagine life without them. That's the hard part.

[ahje]

Not just that: The rest of the world are running around with matches and lighters, are watching us, thinking "Damn, I want one of those" and have started building their own flamethrowers.

Now we're telling them to stop building flamethrowers while we keep insisting that we keep our own.

[mirimir]

Just so.

[magduf]

The problem is that we really can't do anything to fix it; it's much too late. And there's zero possibility we're going to convince enough people and leaders to change things to alleviate the problem, so we might as well just sit back and watch it burn. The wise course of action is to get yourself out of the house and let the rest of the inhabitants suffer the consequences of their own making.

[anigbrowl]

You can't have a meaningful conversation about solutions with someone who rejects the premise on which your predictions are based, in my experience. At best you'll end up being asked to build sea walls at taxpayer expense to protect oil refineries before anything else.

[flukus]

> Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians.

The President of the United States thinks it's a hoax (from snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warmin...):

  The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

  Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2013

  NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2014

  Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

  Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

If you want solutions we need to stop elected politicians that go out of their way to block solutions.

[forkandwait]

It's crazy to say, but no one with a college degree takes the current president at all seriously.

[krapp]

None of those people with college degrees are running the country or setting environmental policy, though. The man who thinks global warming is a Chinese communist plot is.

[mirimir]

It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that. Arguably, he's just playing a role that's designed to increase net support. That is, he's a classic populist. And so what he gives us is a mirror to contemplate. Plus lots of policy that benefits his real supporters.

[flukus]

> It's a dangerous assumption that he thinks that.

So far all decisions he's taken are in-line with someone that thinks that, which is far more important than divining what he truly believes.

[mirimir]

OK. But there's the fact that he did reality TV for years.

There's a saying about the risks of underestimating adversaries. And a clever adversary always acts weaker and crazier than they actually are.