Yep. Not a good way to spend money.

Second thoughts that may just be an upgrade I have that gives me more coin.

[Image] 

Looks like it might. I didn’t complete it all either.

There’s verifiable proof everywhere.

Which critical data-sets do models ignore? The models are built on models of natural factors, that’s partly how we know the human aspect is important - you need to include it to explain the observed changes.

Maybe you can let me know why you can’t find it.

I’ve spent my adult life doing my own research as a scientist.

I’m having trouble finding the poll, and thought I would ask for help. Meaningful help here yet though.

Thanks for your insightful, well-informed help.

I was asking if anyone had a link to that data. It’s everyone else starting arguments. I thought skeptics were as likely as anyone to have read polls - to keep themselves informed.

Yes, I do think we need solutions.

Thanks, I’ll take a look.

I have spent my whole life studying this though so I doubt it presents an argument that will change my mind. It’s not like I haven’t ever met someone who disagrees.

I have never met someone who studied it their whole life that disagrees - except scientists paid by the oil industry.

I’m yet to find a coherent, informed, dissenting argument. Perhaps this is it. I’ll prepare myself accordingly.

I’m talking about human-induced climate change - a man-made component added on top of all the natural components.

So you’re saying polls are pointless? I Anita want the data to know what the public are thinking. I don’t think that’s pointless.

You want to present you opinion too, so it seems you don’t think it is pointless either, unless you only think your voice is worthy.

Asides from model predictions coming true, increasing global temperatures, increasing severity of storms, out-of-season storms, slowing of Ocean currents, ocean acidification, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, knowledge of the greenhouse effect etc…

I’m not sure which part you are arguing with, because you are not presenting an argument.

Yea, I mean that one. We do have some control over it, so far for the negative. For the positive it would require us grappling with our power.

Sorry, it wasn’t an exhaustive list. I’m not writing My book here.

I’d place solar cycles with Milankovich cycles.

Yes, obviously volcanism. Volcanoes drive CO2 up, life sequesters it away. A primary part of the system for sure.

I think I’d quantify plate-tectonics as distribution of land mass - I think I’d place that under my ‘life’ heading. Is that what you’re thinking?

Yes, humanity’s climate envelope was the ice-age - defined by the periods of time with permanent ice-patches on the planet.

We’re potentially leaving that. Obviously there is variation within that envelope. We evolved in an ice-age, we’re an ice-age species.

We’re not clear on whether humans are unsuccessful outside of that envelope. It hasn’t been tested. We are clear it is happening rapidly and we need to adapt our civilization to the changing conditions.

If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere it’s possible we reach a state where brain function is impaired due to high CO2, which in my eyes would decrease our fitness in that environment compared to current, or pre-industrial conditions.

How so?

How did that get down-voted?

Is that aimed at me, or at commenters?

I’m not pushing a narrative, I’m asking for data. I thought skeptics were as likely to read the polls of the public as non-skeptics.

I guess my question is why do you say we have no proof? Clearly you’re saying the evidence we have is insufficient to support this conclusion.

So I’m asking where and why is the evidence insufficient for you? Either: 1. you have studied the evidence and disagree with the conclusions. 2. you are ignorant of the evidence 3. you do not know how to assess the data.

I don’t know how to give you proof, without knowing what proof you are asking for. I don’t know what your argument is, so I do not know how to respond.

I’m asking for help understanding your argument.

What would constitute proof for you? Just looking to tailor my response to what you’re asking for.

What would constitute proof for you? I’m curious how that would look for you.

I chose trust - couldn’t remember if the poll said believe / trust / know / understand.

Right - it’s for sure changed. It’s clearly been habitable since life evolved, although not always for humans.

I’m not saying it’s going to become uninhabitable, I’m saying we’re leaving the climate envelope we evolved in & that is going to be destabilizing for civilization - unless we change course.

What’s your reasoning for it not being an existential threat? I’m genuinely interested in that. I’d love to hear your argument - always good to check out the blind spots.

Yep. Milankovich cycles plus life - two main drivers.

Humanity has never before left the stable climate envelope it evolved in though. This means we are on the path to instability.

Thank you. I’ve read both of these already.

The one I am interested in specifically asked if people wanted to be a part of the solution or not, and also asked something about if they felt like they knew what to do to solve the problem.

I can’t exactly remember the questions.

Thanks for your help though.

Clearly. I’m a meat-eater and a hunter, as well as a climate scientist.

Anything else you assume I’ve over-looked?

No poll data then? Just unasked for opinions…

Are you afraid?