[crocowhile]

You've missed the point. It is well known that co2 is a greenhouse gas. You can do the experiment yourself with some children using a plastic water bottle, a thermometer, and a mixture of baking soda and vinegar. We understand this physics extremely well. Denying the causal effect of co2 on warming is akin to denying the causal effect of gravity towards an apple falling from a tree.

[flash_zombie]

> You can do the experiment yourself with some children using a plastic water bottle, a thermometer, and a mixture of baking soda and vinegar. We understand this physics extremely well.

If you can't see how ridiculous that sounds, you might not understand how people become skeptical about climate science.

If we really understand these physics so well, why have most of the predictions been wrong?

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public...

[crocowhile]

That graph is a known fraud. See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

Don't trust the CATO when it comes to climate (at the very least). They are known negationists. If you understand basic level physics, read the IPCC reports and the realclimate blog.

[ThomPete]

There is a difference between can be demonstrated in a lab and what can get demonstrated in a larger system.

The climate is a non-linear chaotic system it has positive and negative feedback loops.

You can't replicate the climate in a simple experiment which is why we try with models and they are depending on which initial conditions we put in.

If we understood it extremely well we wouldn't come up with a rather large range in the predictions.

[eesmith]

Should we have continued with CFC emissions then? And not put restrictions on sulfur dioxide emissions?

FWIW, we don't have to understand it extremely well, only well enough to affect policy changes.

A 99% probability of an estimated increase of 2-4°C can be considered a rather large range, but enough certainty to know that it's a problem. (Numbers made up for demonstration purposes.)

[ThomPete]

We should improve the environment wherever and whenever we can which is what people demand when the get pulled out of poverty and into the middle class.

But the idea that we should upend the use of fossil fuels without any realistic alternative is simply anti-human and will for sure cause millions to die.

I haven't heard of a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that would lead to that and thus I see no need to worry more about climate change more than pulling people out of poverty.

We should always try and make energy cleaner and less pollutant but wouldn't you agree we should always make a cost benefit analysis and weigh the positive and negative consequences of our decisions?

[eesmith]

I don't understand the point of your first paragraph.

Poor people demand an improved environment too - it's not a special demand limited to the middle class or richer.

Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice#Affected... starts "Among the affected groups of Environmental Justice, those in high-poverty and racial minority groups have the most propensity to receive the harm of environmental injustice." Many of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe members are poor, and they lead the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in part on environmental grounds.

Have you heard of a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of decreased CFC emissions which would lead to people being pulled out of poverty and into the middle class?

Do you support CFC restrictions, and if so, when do you regard the evidence as being strong enough to warrant those restrictions?

I agree we should "weigh the positive and negative consequences of our decisions". I disagree with your statement that there are no realistic alternatives to the current practices.

People argued that there were no realistic alternatives to CFCs. (See http://aei.pitt.edu/63734/1/WD_126.pdf from 1980 for "No satisfactory substitute has yet been found for these machines containing CFCs [11 and 12], but there is undoubtedly room for reducing emissions by making design changes.") Now, from https://www.livescience.com/62603-new-cfcs-enter-ozone-layer... :

"""Neither of the two primary CFC-11 use-cases, firefighting and refrigerators, are at all hampered today by not having the substance, Ferry said. He added that he couldn't think of any special use-case for the chemical for which there isn't already an alternative."""

There is undoubtedly room for alternatives for the current use of fossil fuels.

[ThomPete]

The west have the cleanest environments so yes they go hand in hand. If you have the money you can clean up your environment you do that mostly by replacing things like cooking over indoor fire with gas or induction or electricity and you use air purifiers, and you use better and more modern cars, you clean up the streets and so on. All things rich societies do and poor societies dont.

So you are making my point.

[eesmith]

Do you support CFC restrictions, and if so, when do you regard the evidence as being strong enough to have warranted those restrictions and how has it lead to people being pulled out of poverty and into the middle class?

The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador is but one of many examples which show that poor people don't need to become middle class before wanting to protect the environment. And it's the rich Western companies like Texaco/Chevron which caused the pollution they are protesting against.

[crocowhile]

chaos has nothing to do here. Look, it's really very very simple actually. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases, the more energy gets trap in the atmosphere. This changes the balance and warms up area of the planets that did not warm up for millions of years. Chaos is more important when it comes to weather, but climate is more straight forward. The only pseudo-chaotic aspect of climate change is the so-called tipping cascade and that should scare the bejeezus out of you.