Yes and the scientists who are creating the models are also admitting to their limitations. We have tons of hard evidence showing the benefits of CO2 to basically all aspects of life and nothing even remotely solid that we are facing an existential threat. We are being told not to ask questions because this is too important to waist time explaining things. Quit reading the science journals and read the actual papers.
The existential threat could come from denying the issue and then electing deniers into office in this and the next decade. Eventually, changes that can be managed now (what it is usually what scientists are telling us now, but even your sources refuse to tell you that) will become worse. There is no need for that to take place, and one should make an effort to stop depending on lousy sources of information.
As for the models, the big issue in reality is that they are more accurate than before, and the observed danger is that the conservative nature of many scientists shows on many occasions by underestimating the observed rate of change (particularly in the loss of cap ice)
Any reasonable person then would realize that if the evidence from the journals points to a bit more increases of temperature in the high latitudes than the estimations from models that therefore, one should ask for the increased application of the changes needed to limiting the increase in CO2.
And please stop with your insistence of CO2 being beneficial, you are indeed like the moon landing deniers by insisting on talking about the Van Allen radiation belts. Sure that the knowledge of that can be discussed, but it implies the denial implications were already investigated, and it was found to not be a showstopper to the moon landings, likewise insisting that CO2 will be beneficial to some farmers does not deny that the harm of the CO2 increase due to humans does not exist.
Wait… who is telling us not to ask questions?
And, again, I think you don’t understand how this works. The “actual papers” are what science journals publish. That’s the whole point of writing the papers—to publish them. And the whole point of science journals—to publish papers.
Of course CO2 is beneficial to life. Essential, in fact. Who said it wasn’t? That doesn’t mean that more CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial.
You don’t have to believe that the changes in the climate pose an existential threat if you don’t want to. But vague and conspiratorial assertions aren’t going to convince anybody else. The system isn’t simple, so no simplistic understanding is going to work.
“They”??
What “they”?
Told by whom, specifically?
Hijacking post hidden by What Exit?
Are you saying that it has not been beneficial?
Regarding the former, I would agree that fossil fuels are amazing. They have enabled human advancement and comfort to levels that couldn’t have been dreamed of just a couple of centuries ago.
But, you can have too much of a good thing. And it turns out that pumping out tens of billions of tons of a greenhouse gas, per year, is “too much”.
It’s not about loving or hating oil, it is about not putting our heads in the sand, and addressing a real and growing problem.
Regarding the latter, it’s interesting that you use the “existential threat” phrase. Because, there seem to be clear stages to those who refuse to accept the science.
First, there’s no climate change at all; hence senators bringing snowballs into the Capitol, or (inaccurate) memes about how plymouth rock is still not flooded over.
Then climate change is happening, but it’s just a natural fluctuation or whatever.
Then it’s happening, may well be tied to humans’ CO2 emissions, but it’s not that bad.
Hopefully you don’t directly go to the typical last stage: it’s too late now, but at some point maybe acknowledge that we can and should do something to reduce our CO2 emissions before the situation gets (further) out of our control.
I assume you’re able to read and understand graphs?
This graph shows global temperature increasing over the past century or more. Would you agree with that? Would you agree that if temperatures were to continue to rise they would be an existential threat? If not, why not?
Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning has a couple of good instructional videos on critical thinking and sussing out pseudoscience and disinformation: Here Be Dragons and Principles of Curiosity
Moderating:
Stop with the one line hijacks of this thread.
In fact, stop posting in this thread.
You have too many posts like this in this thread alone.
HBDC just ignored that I did mention later what he selectively omitted in his quote, oh well.
@blondebear 's videos are very good regarding the critical reasoning that many do miss.
This is interesting. At a time when so much of the world is concerned about increasing levels of CO2 it appears you have concerns about the CO2 level decreasing. What are your policy proposals for keeping the CO2 levels at a high enough level that we don’t risk mass extinctions?
Would you suggest a global policy of burning more hydrocarbons to keep the rate high enough?
HBDC cannot respond here-see mod note a couple spaces above.
There is one book which provides the challenge of critical thinking, and hasn’t been mentioned yet:
Chariots of the Gods by van Danniken
It’s a classic of bullshit-presented-as-facts.
It’s 50 years old, but I think it would still be an entertaining and interesting read for 13-14 year olds.
Then help them figure out how to de-bunk it.
I remember thinking it was fascinating stuff.
I compared it to watching a good magician on stage…you know that somehow the show isn’t true, but you can’t figure out how he did it and how you were fooled…
Each chapter in the book is full of oddities that seem unreal.
So you could teach it and help the kids figure out how what seems unreal could actually be explained.
When I read it as a kid, I remember being confused; I didn’t believe in aliens, but hey, how could people have made those statues on Easter Island. or those rock images in Peru?)
And then I became quite proud of myself for realizing, (on my own!) one thing that proved the book wrong: it contained too many examples of totally unrelated mysteries. Sure, maybe one of the mysteries could have happened the way the book describes. But if ancient aliens did lift the heavy stones, why would they then skip over to Peru to make carvings on the plain, and then go to Mount Sinai and build speakers into the wings of the Seraphim angels on the ark?
I think it could be a part of a school curriculum that kids would enjoy, and learn how to think at the same time.
…yep.
Here is something that popped up on my radar a few days ago. (Disclaimer: I can’t vouch for the research here, however the polling company seem legit)
We are now living in a world where disinformation has been mass-produced and weaponized, and It’s had a massive destabilizing effect. Which in itself, paradoxically, sounds like a conspiracy theory. But you just have to look at the rise of everything from climate-change denial, anti-vaxxers, the anti-trans movement, brexit, MAGA, Andrew Tate, to see how endemic it all is.
A course or two in “critical reasoning” isn’t enough to combat any of this. Not when the line between “truth” and “fiction” have become so blurred. The sheer weight of it all is relentless. And thanks to the algorithm, because everyone effectively curates what shows up in our information ecosystem, for those of us who are actually “critical thinkers” much of this disinformation we will never ever see.
That’s exactly what my German class did in 9th grade or so which was around 1983. Our teacher presented an excerpt from one of von Däniken’s books, and we had to analyze it and point out all the bullshit. Our German teacher also taught history, so this was an important lesson for him to teach us.
Germany is so … thoughtfully civilized.
I think that if a teacher tried that in the USA most of the kids would buy VOn Dannekin’s BS hook, line, and sinker with the only result being the teacher will have recruited 30 more people to the CT/QAnon worldview.
Eh, they have their share of nutbars. I was first made aware of Dave Ickes and his “Lizard People Rule the World” book when I was stationed over there. I was a little amused, they told me his book was illegal. I kept it for a suitable period of time to be polite and returned it.
No doubt about that. They all came out of the closet during the pandemic, especially the “alternative” medicine and/or new age crowd.