If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Aivar Usk:
keep[..] the unsettled climate science in public focus to educate the open-minded,
I think it is worthwhile to counter misleading rhetoric as it arises.
There has been in this thread no “unsettled climate science” discussed. This entity has proposed some indirectly, but declined to provide any assertions in climate science when repeatedly asked, except for one occasion. He quoted two assertions, and when I asked him for his reasoning to the truth of those assertions, he demurred. As indeed such entities do.
certainly only until scientific evidence invalidating the course advised by the IPCC would fade and a true consensus emerges.
Recall the immediately preceding words, “open-minded”.
As we have seen in this thread, true believers in CAGW and in the need for climate neutrality will dodge any uncomfortable questions and stand their ground…
As we have seen in this thread, true deniers of anthropogenic global warming will dodge any uncomfortable technical-scientific questions and stand ….. on whatever it is they are standing on.
(Just for clarity - RB does not deny anthropogenic global warming, as I read him.)
See? Such general statements about groups of people gets us precisely nowhere in determining the truth or not of specific assertions in climate science.
Trench warfare between climate scientists will probably continue for quite some time;
Another assertion about groups of people, not climate science.
There really isn't much “trench warfare” between climate scientists. That was a decade ago. Some of the people fueling that have passed from the scene, notably the protagonists of Oreskes and Conway's 2010 book, as well as many of their reasons for doing so. There are a few climate scientists who continue to disagree with major results, such as the Hockey Stick. A few. But other quondam contrarians, such as Christy and Pielke, I understand have considered it as part of established science for a decade.
the general public is typically unaware of non-CAGW theories that explain mild warming, and of refutations of certain alarmist research papers.
The general public is typically unaware of the technical details of scientific debates. Indeed, all of of us are typically unaware of the technical details of any debate unless we take the time (and have the technical capability) to get into it.
The IPCC was set up as a forum to see whether a branch of science which some saw as key to human development could regularly derive and issue a consensus opinion on what that science generally saw as settled. It appears that it can indeed be done.
Almost every one of us who has worked in consensus-based gremiums know what their advantages and pitfalls are. How things can be promoted and derailed by people with particular interests. They are very hard to work in. Given that, I think the IPCC is an amazing success story over three decades.
Imagine, if you will, attempting something similar with cybersecurity.
I doubt whether even a cooling period that may have started already would bring significant changes to climate policies in a time scale shorter than 5 to 10 years - too many stakeholders have invested too much of themselves into battling CAGW...
Ah, is this a scientific claim? A suggestion that a global cooling period is beginning? What is the reasoning? Who are the scientists claiming this? Where is it published?
Aivar Usk:
keep[..] the unsettled climate science in public focus to educate the open-minded,
I think it is worthwhile to counter misleading rhetoric as it arises.
There has been in this thread no “unsettled climate science” discussed. This entity has proposed some indirectly, but declined to provide any assertions in climate science when repeatedly asked, except for one occasion. He quoted two assertions, and when I asked him for his reasoning to the truth of those assertions, he demurred. As indeed such entities do.
certainly only until scientific evidence invalidating the course advised by the IPCC would fade and a true consensus emerges.
Recall the immediately preceding words, “open-minded”.
As we have seen in this thread, true believers in CAGW and in the need for climate neutrality will dodge any uncomfortable questions and stand their ground…
As we have seen in this thread, true deniers of anthropogenic global warming will dodge any uncomfortable technical-scientific questions and stand ….. on whatever it is they are standing on.
(Just for clarity - RB does not deny anthropogenic global warming, as I read him.)
See? Such general statements about groups of people gets us precisely nowhere in determining the truth or not of specific assertions in climate science.
Trench warfare between climate scientists will probably continue for quite some time;
Another assertion about groups of people, not climate science.
There really isn't much “trench warfare” between climate scientists. That was a decade ago. Some of the people fueling that have passed from the scene, notably the protagonists of Oreskes and Conway's 2010 book, as well as many of their reasons for doing so. There are a few climate scientists who continue to disagree with major results, such as the Hockey Stick. A few. But other quondam contrarians, such as Christy and Pielke, I understand have considered it as part of established science for a decade.
the general public is typically unaware of non-CAGW theories that explain mild warming, and of refutations of certain alarmist research papers.
The general public is typically unaware of the technical details of scientific debates. Indeed, all of of us are typically unaware of the technical details of any debate unless we take the time (and have the technical capability) to get into it.
The IPCC was set up as a forum to see whether a branch of science which some saw as key to human development could regularly derive and issue a consensus opinion on what that science generally saw as settled. It appears that it can indeed be done.
Almost every one of us who has worked in consensus-based gremiums know what their advantages and pitfalls are. How things can be promoted and derailed by people with particular interests. They are very hard to work in. Given that, I think the IPCC is an amazing success story over three decades.
Imagine, if you will, attempting something similar with cybersecurity.
I doubt whether even a cooling period that may have started already would bring significant changes to climate policies in a time scale shorter than 5 to 10 years - too many stakeholders have invested too much of themselves into battling CAGW...
Ah, is this a scientific claim? A suggestion that a global cooling period is beginning? What is the reasoning? Who are the scientists claiming this? Where is it published?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
