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.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
I think it is worthwhile to counter misleading rhetoric as it arises.
I whole heartedly agree with you.
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.
This is not exactly as I remember it; I have tried to answer every direct question. Even when I did it countering with a question, I do not see why the burden of proving some scientific claims should lay on me while you were unable to refute such claims. On the other hand, I cannot recall any replies from you to Roger's questions (posted on 5 October, 2021 at 12:56), or any comments on presented wildfire statistics as well as ECS from my McKitrick and Christy CMIP6 model quote.
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.
I would not know about them; one might recall that I wrote on September 23, a few pages back:
"Climate change is real indeed; it has been fluctuating for billions of years. Personally, I have no doubt that humans have influenced it somewhat during recent hundreds of years, but having looked at the research results of scientists in opposition with IPCC "findings" I seriously doubt that arriving at CO2 neutrality would have any significant impact on the ongoing climate change."
I can rephrase that for clarity: yes, I do believe that CO2 emitted as a result of burning fossil fuels contributes somewhat to enhancing the greenhouse effect, therefore also to warming. I also believe that such contribution is largely overestimated by many due to the fact that water vapor is still the dominating greenhouse gas, and capabilty of atmospheric CO2 to block outgoing longwave radiation is nearly saturated at present 414+ ppm concentrations. Borrowing from Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, on Radiation Transfer:
"... the flux changes from doubling the concentrations of greenhouse gases, a very substantial change, reduces the radiation to space by only a few Wm-2. This is only a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space, or the 91 Wm-2 change of solar flux between winter and summer. And cloud cover ... further diminishes the influence of greenhouse gases. It
is very hard to convince people with technical common sense that such small changes will have any harmful consequences."
Would you agree with that? If not, what is your basis for counterargument?
There really isn't much “trench warfare” between climate scientists. That was a decade ago. ... There are a few climate scientists who continue to disagree with major results, such as the Hockey Stick. A few.
Depends on what exactly "a few" means in this context (I hope to be excused - English is my third foreign language, picked up without formal training, I certainly lose in eloquence to you). Decades ago there were only a few hundred climate scientists in the world, now that business is certainly blooming. When I last checked the August 2021 "World Climate Declaration - There is no climate emergency", I counted 920 signatories, most of them with titles suggesting credibility, 9 IPCC expert reviewers among them. Many of them are still active in research, many have published peer-reviewed works. Many of the sceptical scientists were not there. I'd say there is still disagreement in the air.
"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?
A scientific claim would require a confirmation by a certain period of observation; I clearly wrote "that may have started already". The facts are that we are in the beginning of the solar cycle 25 that some have forecasted to be weak (some have forecasted the opposite); for the Antarctic continent, "winter of 2021 was among the coldest on record"; "an extreme and unprecedented cold weather outbreak, with historic snowfall across some regions" in South America; a cold La Nina started this year and is forecasted in December, again. In my country, most of the months have been colder than the long term average this year, except the times of the June/July heat wave; according to our chief meteorologist, our weather is yet not out of long term bonds and change to a cooler period is possible. Nevertheless, if the 50 year linear annual temperature trend calculated by Dr. Humlum is cyclic (60 to 65 years, 5 solar cycles), we may just have crossed a peak:
