[rglover]

The skepticism isn't focused on whether it's happening (or even scientifically possible), it's on how much hyperbole is attached to the claims being made and how does that align with observed/measured reality. When the news is shouting "omg panic!! code red!!" based on the least realistic models in the IPCC reports, anyone who is intellectually honest says "well, wait...what aren't we being told here?"

Because that happens more often than not, skepticism is further excited when you get politicians who claim to be in favor of climate change policy, only to then go and fly private jets, buy ocean front property, etc. This gets conveniently ignored by folks who have turned climate change into a religion.

Every time you even begin to say "hey, we should consider this..." people sperg out and start calling you a "climate change denier" or some other disparaging term. Literally turning their brains off to counter argument because they can't handle the idea that they're living in an incomplete reality.

There is absolutely nothing controversial about saying "let's look at all sides and evaluate carefully" (the scientific process as we've agreed upon it for millennia). People have been radicalized and frightened to the point where they no longer think rationally about the problem (and solutions) and instead get hyper-tribalistic, shouting down any reasonable discussion that doesn't automatically agree with their point of view.

That's why people are skeptical.

[time_to_smile]

> "omg panic!! code red!!" based on the least realistic models in the IPCC reports,

You mean articles like this Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'? [0]

Because that specific quote, "code red" is not BBC editorialization. It is a direct quote from UN Secretary-General António Guterres [1]

> Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.

People accuse you ave being a skeptic not because you are saying "hey, we should consider this...", it's because, as exemplified by this exact comment, you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate. "Code red" is not based on the "least realistic" models, they are based on our current pathway, that was what made the most recent IPCC report so alarming.

Climate change poses an extremely serious, near term threat to our very way of life. I know that this can be hard to accept, but it is important to, at the very least, not silence those who are pointing this out.

0. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58130705

1. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm

[rglover]

> you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate

I'm literally not. It's in the report [1]. Your condescension here is exactly what I'm getting at. You assume I'm an idiot because we disagree.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (Page 304, lines 15-27).

Edit: not my own math but this is important, too, and further cements my point: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424718032279011339.

[time_to_smile]

I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared. You're playing the exact tricks here that I just pointed out in the previous comment but I'm genuinely unsure of your motives. (btw, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think most climate skeptics are idiots, I think they're terrified beyond what they themselves even realize)

The page you linked to says that RCP 8.5 is very unlikely, but none of the "code red" reports claim otherwise.

All of the "code red" reports claim that we are virtually certain to be unable to stay below 1.5 preindustrial. This is RCP 4.5 and above. Something that if we had this conversation 20 years ago was also viewed as very unlikely.

I think either you don't know or are wildly underestimating the severe impact that these alternative pathways will have on human populations. RCP 8.5 is as horrific as it is unlikely, but all the other pathways we are rushing towards are still absolutely "code red".

In the early 2000s most people earnestly thought we wouldn't get past 1C, now that is impossible.

It's not even worth getting into all the ways that many people agree the IPCC reports tend to be a bit conservative. I'm fine throwing out all of these concerns, and sticking with just the report, but even with just the report, even on RCP 4.5, we're in very real trouble. It is absolutely a 'code red'.

[rglover]

> I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared.

None of the above. I'm reading the report and forming my own opinion while factoring out the hyperbole and panic of the media, politicians, etc. My motivation is thinking for myself and considering whether all of the theatrics align with the reality in front of me (they don't).

To further elaborate on my skepticism, perfectly valid technologies that could have been implemented decades ago (while there was plenty of awareness of this problem, as well as "global cooling") like nuclear have been foolishly ignored, discredited, etc. The primary argument I hear is "too expensive" and "too long to build," yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions.

All of what I said above combined with that tells me the motivation of the people trying to scare everyone is disingenuous. When someone's actions don't align with their speech, it's often indicative of dishonesty. Considering how much money is at stake, the probability of that is increased.

[whatisthiseven]

"yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions."

I don't understand. The people in the US Congress are hamstringing themselves and can barely pass their own legislation, yet somehow that inaction and political gridlock, which existed and will exist regardless of climate change, is somehow proof that...climate change isn't as bad?

You know who else also has a ton of money and a willingness to be dishonest? Every company that produces or relies directly on coal, oil, and gas. They ensure Congress is useless and unable to act by funding a party that ensures nothing happens.

I don't understand this take. Those of us that want to solve climate change want nuclear, we want solar, we want it all. We want to give Hydrogen to Aluminum plants to supplant CO2 they release, we want to electricy cars, we want to feed seaweed to cows to stop their farts.

You might be arguing against a loud majority that is repeating dumb stuff, but surely HN attracts people that can ignore the bad policies and arguments and elevate the best?

[rglover]

> is somehow proof that...climate change isn't as bad?

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my point. No. Read my initial comment. My goal isn't to say climate change isn't bad. You're doing exactly what I called out above.

[antifa]

> The primary argument I hear is "too expensive" and "too long to build," yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year.

Congress is full of corrupt people who can afford to move on a whim, are in the pockets of Big Oil, and plan on retiring and dying before the worst of it hits.

It's very serious, it's just not their problem.

[breakyerself]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02990-w

A LOT of scientists believe that we're on track for a cataclysmic amount of warming. 3C of warming is nothing to fuck around with.

[rglover]

A lot of scientists believed we were on track for a new ice age in the 70s [1] (using the same media-driven fearmongering tactics back then, too).

The point being, don't just take what you're fed. If you dig around, you might find that a lot of the claims on scientific consensus are misrepresented (as dismissed by the quoted scientists) [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDWPOgeq7vk

[2] https://archive.md/rU2xT

[dwaltrip]

Far more scientists were talking about global warming in the 70s than a new ice age.

Source: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

I learned of this from Vertasium's video on global warming myths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

[breakyerself]

The consensus on climate change is not controversial. It's been studies many times in a multitude of different ways.

Peer reviewed scientific studies examining the level of consensus among climate scientists that Earth is warming and the primary cause is human activity:

Verheggen 2014 - 91% consensus Powell, 2013 - 97% consensus John Cook et al., 2013 - 97% consensus Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 - 84% consensus Anderegg et al, 2010 - 97% consensus Doran, 2009 - 97% consensus Bray and von Storch, 2008 - 93.8% consensus STATS, 2007 - 95% consensus Oreskes, 2004 - 100% consensus

The Cook 2016 meta analysis of consensus studies finds the rate of consensus between 90 - 100% and that agreement with the consensus approaches 100% as expertise in climatology increases.

This list is probably outdated. I put it together 5 or 6 years ago.

Then theres that survey by Science where 60% of respondents said they expect us to hit 3C of warming because of intransigence by policy makers.

[waych]

97% of scientists agree with their source of funding.

[breakyerself]

Funny how they keep saying the same shit even when climate denying idiots come to power and try to shut them up.

[waych]

Climate change idiots are no better, relying on lies and bullshit "consensus" numbers that are selectively biased by their funding.

I'm sure you would find results that are diametrically opposed to climate change if you looked at studies funded by say, oil companies, and there is no doubt in mind as to the bias implied in that direction.

The harsh reality is that things are more nuanced than either side would have you believe, and throwing numbers like "90% consensus" is a fallacious way to bully an argument, and isn't at all scientific on its own.

[breakyerself]

Why would a climate scientist in the 1970s join the small minority in publishing a paper predicting cooling?

1. They focused narrowly on studying the natural drivers of climate change without accounting for the affect of human beings on greenhouse gas concentrations.

2. They focused narrowly on the effects of human emissions of aerosol pollution without accounting for the effects of humans on greenhouse gas levels.

3. Bad science maybe.

Regardless the majority of scientists who accurately predicted warming did not just wind up on the right side of a 50/50 bet. They didn't just predict that there would be warming. They predicted the amount of warming that could be expected depending on the emission scenario that played out.

The planet is now hotter than it has been in over 100,000 years and it's also precisely how warm scientists said it would be at this time with this co2 level. It's one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences and you disregard this because a different smaller group of scientists made a wrong prediction that got too much press. Makes sense.

[Klarios]

While I think you underestimate what this means for a lot of 'other' people than 'us' (comparable rich people) it has hard/deadly affects already.

And even less human critical things are also dramatic just not for everyone. When you tell me all coral reefs are dying I really think this is very bad.

[rglover]

No, my opinion includes concern for developing nations. Not allowing them to access fossil fuels or other forms of cheap plentiful energy means they can't develop properly (i.e., permanent impoverishment).

[breakyerself]

This is silly. Wind and solar are cheaper than coal and in many circumstances cheaper than natural gas. Storage tech is also getting cheaper. The capital costs of decentralized renewables are also favorable to a lot of rural parts of the world VS building out transmission lines of hundreds of miles.

Africa never really built out an extensive land line telephone system, but most Africans have cell phones now. They do not need to move through an obsolete technology in order to adopt a new one.

[rglover]

> Wind and solar are cheaper than coal and in many circumstances cheaper than natural gas.

Now do the reliability part.

Edit: Worth reading this [1] and this [2].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01020-z

[2] https://archive.md/4D5R6

[breakyerself]

Theres a nearly limitless number of ways to store energy. Plenty of them don't require cobalt. The cheaper renewables get the less efficient storage technologies need to be to be cost effective.

Anywhere pricing of electricity fluctuates with the intermittence of renewables there is opportunity to use storage to profit. The faster we drive the adoption of renewables in the 1st world the faster prices on storage tech will drop which will benefit the developing world. Especially the parts which will never have transmission lines built out from some centralized power plant 300 kilometers away.