[danioli]

It's not that I'm sceptical of climate science, it's just that the discussion is now... entrenched. The random person will not debate the wisdom of human-induced changes to the weather, but also will probably not understand the Milankovitch cycles, or know the ocean water levels rise and fall on geological timescales by about 130 meters?, that we know this because (IIRC) of Wallace (I think, in tandem with Darwin?) who also noted that the divergence between different variants of the same species across the islands of an an archipelago varied more with the depth of the water between islands, than with just the distance. What about the PET (Paleocene-Eocene transition)? I'm sure that climate scientists are doing their jobs, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many (including "activists") who are willing to debate the matter without this key. Why doesn't this ever come up? (both the cycles, and the lack of depth in the discussions) If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now. And personally, I am even more sceptical when I hear talk of climate justice, but that is an entirely different issue.

[tasty_freeze]

If I said human activity doesn't affect the stock market -- it just operates on cycles. It goes up for awhile, then it goes down for awhile, you'd rightfully laugh at me. But that is exactly what you are doing about AGW.

Yes, the climate has changed in the past. But that doesn't mean the driver of those historical changes is driving the current change. People have always died, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't require safety devices in automobiles. Second, "cycles" is just way too blithe of a summary, as if there was a clockwork mechanism driving things. The gaps between the ups and downs is irregular.

> Why doesn't this [Milankovich cycles] ever come up?

I'm 100.00% sure climatologists are well aware of it and it has been modeled and found unable to explain the trends we are seeing.

[Kadin]

> If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now.

We probably should, or take other similar-scale approaches (multiple, as it wouldn't do to put all our eggs in one basket).

The lack of response shouldn't be taken as any indication that the problem isn't dire. That would be placing a truly ridiculous amount of faith in human civilization to tackle collective-action problems, which there is little evidence we are especially good at doing.

In fact, what you see in the world is exactly consistent with an extremely dire problem and a very insufficient response.

Why the response to such a dire problem is so lukewarm is left as an exercise for the reader.

[ZeroGravitas]

I think it's notable that he's saying "I don't believe in this, but I'd belive it if you did X" where X has been considered and dismissed by most relevant experts (nuclear is simply too slow to build and and too expensive to fix the problem) exactly like these cycles have been discounted as an explanation of global warming.

So if someone keeps bringing these things up, then it's likely they're acting in bad faith or they've been duped by someone else doing likewise.

Enthusiastic nuclear support while downplaying other sensible solutions (carbon fees, renewables, insulation and efficiency) is basically the socially acceptable face of climate change denial at this point.

[Arn_Thor]

I'd hazard to guess that Milankovitch cycles come up seldom because they're pretty widely recognized as not being a determining factor in the climate change we see. For an in-depth explanation of how the phenomenon relates to climate change see this well-sourced video: https://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A

[akvadrako]

They are relevant. Most of the previous interglacials during this ice age were about 10ka. How come this one continues and how long do we expect it to last? To know this one uses Milankovitch cycles.

There is quite some debate over the issue, but we probably have 5-30ka left of warm weather.

[andygates]

> Why doesn't this ever come up?

Because it's not responsible: it's currently a tiny downward trend that is only noticeable over millennia.

Science doesn't bring up every damn thing every damn time, because life is too short. People questioning this haven't even done high-school level reading. They're not adding to the sum of human knowledge, they're just flapping their jaws.

[anewguy9000]

The average IQ is 100. Do you know what someone with an IQ of 100 is capable of? Just about anything except science. The random person has no idea what they know or why and how they know it.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx