By global warming, I assume you mean man-made global warming. That is, the idea that humans, with their powered machines and factory farming, are primarily and exclusively responsible for the recorded global warming.

Here are my opinions:

If it were clear that humans had no influence on the climate, the whole discussion would definitely be less emotional and less offensive. One would have no other choice than to accept what is necessary, as one does with one's own death. The climatic changes happening on all planets and in all suns throughout the universe are not man-made, but natural and inevitable.

Can we be absolutely sure that we are primarily changing the climate? Of course not. Science can always be wrong, because it can simply overlook many things. That is, there may be much that we have not yet considered regarding climate shifts. We know very little about the mechanisms and interactions between the Earth's spheres, such as the ignorosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc. However, the activities of these spheres are probably determinant for our climate.

If there should have been times in the earth's history when there was a higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than today and yet it was much colder, and vice versa, times when there was less CO2, and it was much hotter than today, then there would be a good reason to deny man-made climate change.

Are we really so sure about the climate issue? There are people who advocate a different cosmology than the mainstream one. For them, it is clear that “we must not be deluded into thinking [“reducing air pollution”] will affect climate significantly. The connection between warming and atmospheric pollution is more asserted than demonstrated, while the connection with variations in the Sun has been demonstrated.” https://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-warming-in-a-climate-of-ignorance/

As a true philosopher, one must remain neutral to alternative scientific models. For philosophers have often made fools of themselves in history with alleged empirical facts. The accusation of unserious fringe science is not tenable, since many great recognized scientists were ridiculed as pioneers by their colleagues back then.

The current climate debate tends strongly towards a psychogenic and sociogenic mass phenomenon, keyword alarmism, which I think is dangerous, because you lose your cool head, which you need in case of any possible danger. One should just take an in-depth look at the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the criticism of science, to be more relaxed. I am very skeptical of climate modeling. Human beings imagine that they can model everything. That is hubris. The world is always much, much more complex than we think.

Perhaps there is even no reason to panic at all, as some scientists, who seem objective to me, think: “Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial.” (Matt Ridley)

https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-global-warming-can-be-good/

A certain Bjorn Lomborg thinks similarly.

Whoever now says that these two are charlatans has obviously given up his objectivity.

A good discussion that the climate thing is not absolutely settled can be found here:

What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters (Steven Koonin)

I agree with the following:

“Separating Science and State

Always keen to shock, Feyerabend sometimes described his position as “relativism,” but in fact he explicitly rejected what most people think of when they hear that term—namely the thesis that all views are equally true or false. What he really favored was a pluralism that refused to allow any one tradition, including science, to dominate all others politically in a democratic society. His positive defense of this view was essentially an adaptation of Mill’s On Liberty.

Mill gave four main arguments for the freedom to express one’s opinions, and Feyerabend takes a consistent application of them to entail that science ought to have no greater hegemony over society than the Church does.

First, any opinion that we try to suppress might in fact be true, so that by suppressing it we could be leading ourselves and others into error. Mill pointed out that to assume otherwise is to claim infallibility. Yet no one (other than a pope speaking ex cathedra) even claims to be infallible; certainly liberals and scientists do not. But in that case, they cannot consistently hold that some views ought to be considered beyond the pale and entirely unworthy of our attention.

Second, even erroneous and unpopular positions typically contain at least a grain of truth, while correct and popular positions are never entirely free of error. Hence, if we are to get closer to the truth, we need to allow these competing opinions to battle it out in the public square so that their adherents might learn from each other.

Third, even when some popular opinion is true, its adherents tend to become dogmatic and superficial in their understanding of the arguments in its favor when they have not had seriously to grapple with competing views.

Fourth and finally, a grasp even of the meaning of a correct opinion tends to get lost when challenges to it are never permitted. It becomes a banality that is merely parroted rather than understood.

Mill emphasized that it is not enough merely to hear out unpopular opinions in a grudging and perfunctory way. One must try to interpret them in the most sympathetic and persuasive form possible, if one is to discover what truth there might be in them and what weaknesses might lie in more popular opinions.

Furthermore, Mill stressed, it is not enough for the expression of unpopular opinions not to be legally prohibited. There must be no social sanction against their expression. Indeed, he regarded social pressure as more insidious than governmental control. By means of it, Mill says:

Society…practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

In Feyerabend’s view, when science arrogates to itself privileges like those described above, it violates these Millian principles. Advocates of scientism would suppress views that conflict with prevailing scientific opinion, shouting them down and preventing their expression in the public education system. They thereby implicitly claim an infallibility that in other contexts they would say no one has. They also fail to learn from their critics, turning science into an ideology and its findings into a bag of clichés repeated robotically rather than understood.” https://americanmind.org/salvo/scientism-americas-state-religion/

When someone wanted to counter me that this passage comes from a religious, conservative voice, I say: That doesn't automatically mean that this voice is wrong in this particular respect. One should beware of non- sequitur.

What if climate alarmism is a quasi-religious substitute? Since Nietzsche stated that we have killed God, the danger is great that we want to fill the void with something instead of simply accepting it.

It seems to me that humankind, as a human condition, always needs a vision of the end times in order to be motivated to act. Without a doomsday scenario with the option, hope, to be able to do something about it, humans would probably get very tired of life. So there is a psychological urge to look for reasons for a downfall. And those who seek, also find. But what if it is a mere fiction? Utility does not make truth. That it is a fiction is even more probable within the framework of this thinking. After all, why would a product of an elementary human need or urge coincide with reality. That would be just a big coincidence.

I admit, an imminent demise brings us together, makes us solidary, makes us more human, brings technical progress, makes us more heroic, and so on. Still, the downfall does not have to be true.

Anyone who thinks that we should not take any unnecessary risks and rather bet that the downfall will actually come and that we will actually be able to prevent it is doing nothing other than making a secular form of Pascal's wager. But anyone who is prepared to take this secular bet should inevitably also bet on the religious one. Because what would be the worldly downfall compared to an eternal torture in the hereafter.

The fact that there is still time to prevent the worst from happening, if we only make an effort now, will definitely motivate many. But the chance that the train has already left seems very high to me, assuming that we are responsible for the mess. But why should 2030 be the point of no return? Behind such a date lies only ideology and political propaganda.

A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. — I like sushi

No, it isn't. It's an ignorant position. It's a position which ignores the scientific consensus, decades of research, and overwhelming evidence available at a keystroke.

Can we be absolutely sure that we are primarily changing the climate? — spirit-salamander

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.

Perhaps there is even no reason to panic at all, as some scientists, who seem objective to me, think: “Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial.” (Matt Ridley) — spirit-salamander

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.

But the chance that the train has already left seems very high to me, assuming that we are responsible for the mess. But why should 2030 be the point of no return? — spirit-salamander

No one is saying 2030 is the point of no return.

No it is not. To question the possible effects of a changing climate is reasonable. Like I said, a great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale who talk about human extinction. The kind of folks pushing for all kinds of policies that result in destructions of environments and poverty.

Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial.

Understand?

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything. — Xtrix

No, climate is an extremely complex thing and not like anything.

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is. — Xtrix

That is not a substantial response. I might say severe droughts have always existed. And natural catastrophes too. How do you know that there are many more now? This could be a distortion of perception.

No one is saying 2030 is the point of no return. — Xtrix

Some say so.

Your whole response is unphilosophical.

No it is not. To question the possible effects of a changing climate is reasonable. — I like sushi

That's not what you said.

but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. — I like sushi

Human activity is the reason we see the rate of change we're seeing. There are people who have studied this their entire lives which will explain it to you -- the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection or access to a library.

Like I said, a great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale who talk about human extinction. The kind of folks pushing for all kinds of policies that result in destructions of environments and poverty. — I like sushi

That's also not what you said.

But even this is stuff you'd hear in the WSJ editorial pages or Fox News. Who cares about "nutcases"? We're talking about scientists. The IPCC isn't a group of "nutcases," so what are we arguing against besides a straw man?

Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial. — I like sushi

What do you think climate scientists have been studying all these years?

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.
— Xtrix

No, climate is an extremely complex thing and not like anything. — spirit-salamander

Boiling water is a complex thing too. It's fairly well understood though.

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.
— Xtrix

That is not a substantial response. I might say severe droughts have always existed. And natural catastrophes too. How do you know that there are many more now? This could be a distortion of perception. — spirit-salamander

Natural catastrophes have always existed. Believe it or not, climate scientists know this too.

How do we know there are many more now? Because we can count. We can measure frequency, duration, and intensity. Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.

Your whole response is unphilosophical. — spirit-salamander

Makes sense, since this isn't a philosophical matter. This is a matter of science and, in your case, ignorance.

Boiling water is a complex thing too. It's fairly well understood though. — Xtrix

And I would add that we still do not understand the properties and behaviors and operations of water in certain circumstances.

Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance. — Xtrix

In this regard, please read Bjorn Lomborg. The media portray many things in a distorted way or even simply incorrectly. For example, with regard to forest fires. Steve Koonin looked at the data from climate scientists, and they show that there is no need to panic.

Makes sense, since this isn't a philosophical matter. This is a matter of science and, in your case, ignorance. — Xtrix

Then why is it being discussed here in this forum? It can only be for the reason that science presupposes philosophy.

How do you know you're not the ignorant one? What if the Electric Universe people are right?

If you say they can't possibly be right, then you're not a true philosopher and have no business in this forum.

We know very little about the mechanisms and interactions between the Earth's spheres, such as the ignorosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc. However, the activities of these spheres are probably determinant for our climate. — spirit-salamander

That is a fact. What do you say?

Maybe you should read what I said before stating I didn’t say it?

Climate scientists have been studying the climate. Did you think I believed they have been developing hairstyles? Do you think I believe that current climate change is not primarily being caused by human actions? Do you think that I believe humans have had no impact on the climate … point being what you think I think is irrelevant. I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong.

Now my question to you. What have hairdressers been doing for the past century? :D

Bjorn Lomborg is a somewhat questionable source. Check your sources out thoroughly, question them, hold onto doubt and try to destroy your heroes at every given opportunity.

Again, this ties back into the poor ability of humans to manage information and communicate amongst the noise and hyperbole.

Just to add, water can be boiled multiple times in a single day whereas the changes to the climate are on a slightly more grander scale ;)

And I would add that we still do not understand the properties and behaviors and operations of water in certain circumstances. — spirit-salamander

And...?

Remember what I said: we can be as certain of this as we are of anything. Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? We don't inject this truism into discussions about gravity or electromagnetism or walking out the door -- so why make it here?

We're as certain about the role of human activity on climate change rate as we are of anything. The evidence is overwhelming and available to all who wish to be educated about the issue. Does this include you or not? Are you interested in learning about it or not?

Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.
— Xtrix

In this regard, please read Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times -- although I'm not surprised that this is the person you've chosen to follow. Ask yourself why you choose this person over the scientific community?

Steve Koonin — spirit-salamander

Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with?

How about balancing it out and read what the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, or any reputable climate scientist has written about this?

Then why is it being discussed here in this forum? It can only be for the reason that science presupposes philosophy. — spirit-salamander

Lots of things are discussed on this forum.

True, science does have its roots in philosophy. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. What's being discussed is climate science. If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest.

How do you know you're not the ignorant one? — spirit-salamander

I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. Why? Because I'm citing scientists and evidence, not my own musings.

If you say they can't possibly be right, then you're not a true philosopher and have no business in this forum. — spirit-salamander

I'm really not interested in your sophomoric thoughts about what "true philosophy" is. So far you've cited two widely debunked non-climate scientists and repeated long-refuted claims about climate change. Forgive me if I question your judgment.

I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong. — I like sushi

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. The way you worded it was ambiguous in my view.

Incidentally, I don't think those who disagree are evil, but I do think they're ignorant and wrong. That often gets conflated.

Bjorn Lomborg is a somewhat questionable source. — I like sushi

Maybe you are right. But how do you know? The media's scaremongering is not a reliable source either. I'm not necessarily on Lomborg 's side either. It's just that the opposition seems to me to have abandoned objectivity to a large extent. And there are good reasons for my suspicion.

Do you know about the history of science? Or do you know how things work in the background of a science enterprise? Scientists usually argue very fiercely among themselves. Though when it comes to climate, many seem to be tacitly muzzled by social pressure.

I repost this as it may be helpful:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:



That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

I'm not necessarily on Lomborg 's side either. It's just that the opposition seems to me to have abandoned objectivity to a large extent. And there are good reasons for my suspicion. — spirit-salamander

What "opposition"? You mean the entire scientific community? They've abandoned "objectivity"?

Also, I don't think the media is scaring us ENOUGH. We should be much, much more alarmed, given the evidence.

Though when it comes to climate, many seem to be tacitly muzzled by social pressure. — spirit-salamander

There is evidence that they have been extremely reluctant to talk about how dire the situation is, out of a desire not to appear "alarmist" or un-objective. That has been the social pressure.

I know enough to know that prominent neuroscientists today have stated that in their youth they were told to steer clear of research into ‘consciousness’ because it was regarded as too ‘fringe’ and would possibly end their careers. I also know that many scientists ‘play the game’. Meaning they will contrive experiments around a popular demand/theme in order to get funding if they can shoehorn in a way of getting the data out for something they need - often happens for military research.

And...? — Xtrix

Certain predictions regarding water behavior would then simply be uncertain. An analogy to climate.

Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? — Xtrix

How often have scientists been wrong in history? Actually, all the time. There is no reason to believe them, especially when they become absolutist with their ideas.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times — Xtrix

Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with? — Xtrix

You seem a little unfair and stroppy in parts because you think you're absolutely sure of what you're saying. And yes, maybe you're right, and these two guys are completely wrong. But they seem to me to be more objective than the media coverage.

Btw. Even many pioneers in science were once considered misleading, and many scientists who were bogeymen in their time were sometimes later vindicated.

If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest. — Xtrix

It is not only about evidence, but also about lack of knowledge. As said, the knowledge of the operations between the sun and the earth spheres is absolutely deficient.

I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. — Xtrix

Relying on what the current state of science says is not a good thing. See history of science and philosophy of science (Have you read Paul Feyerabend?). Or are you a proponent of scientism? I don't believe you when you say you could be wrong. I think you are as sure of your cause as a traditional Catholic is sure of the existence of God.

debunked — Xtrix

debunked has become a vacuous, watered-down concept. Do you think astrology has been debunked yet?

Forgive me if I question your judgment. — Xtrix

That's the point I was trying to get across in my first post. And I'm not asking you to believe me. After all, it was asked for an opinion in this entry, but for you, one cannot cherish mere opinions in this regard. Would you take action against me as the head of state?

Now you have posted graphs to support your thesis. Let me tell you an anecdote. In Germany, where I come from, there is a popular scientist, Harald Lesch, who 20 years ago did not take the theses about man-made climate change seriously at all. In doing so, he also pulled up scientific graphs like you've done now. His thesis was more or less that of Koonin. (Check out the discussion between Koonin and Michael Shermer. He doesn't strike me as a charlatan.)

The last years, Harald Lesch has changed his opinion completely. He now thinks like you. Unfortunately, the suspicion cannot be suppressed that he talks like that because he is under social pressure.

What "opposition"? You mean the entire scientific community? They've abandoned "objectivity"? — Xtrix

At least outwardly. I'm sure if I talked privately with many climate scientists that what they would tell me would not necessarily mirror the public discourse which is pure panic mode.

There is evidence that they have been extremely reluctant to talk about how dire the situation is, out of a desire not to appear "alarmist" or un-objective. That has been the social pressure. — Xtrix

This is a mere assertion. I need evidence.

Also, I don't think the media is scaring us ENOUGH. We should be much, much more alarmed. — Xtrix

So you would prefer to silence someone like me? That is, ban me from all online discussions.

There is no agenda or activism behind my position. I just wanted to express my opinion because OP asked for opinions.

The following is also my position:

I know enough to know that prominent neuroscientists today have stated that in their youth they were told to steer clear of research into ‘consciousness’ because it was regarded as too ‘fringe’ and would possibly end their careers. I also know that many scientists ‘play the game’. Meaning they will contrive experiments around a popular demand/theme in order to get funding if they can shoehorn in a way of getting the data out for something they need - often happens for military research. — I like sushi

Today's science believes that the Earth's climate is an isolated thing: the climate changes largely because of greenhouse gases, and processes that come from outside the Earth are said to have only marginal influence.

I think it is the other way around.

great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale — I like sushi

Any example?

To state that scientists have been wrong all of the time is blatantly false. Newton was not ‘wrong’ just because Einstein came along with more accurate equations.

That said I completely understand that in regard to the history of the Earth ‘outside’ influences could be a bigger influence than previously thought. The best data we have (from numerous sources) does strongly point to human impact being highly influential in regards to climate change (a very, very basic understand of greenhouse gases shows this). And again … That said, there is undoubtedly more to climate change than we know about given that such cycles cover vast periods of time … and again, that said we can still make some pretty darn good models that have had good predictive accuracy. The weather is VERY hard to predict yet the seasons are VERY easy to predict.

Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years), yet we could effectively end civilisation by the end of the century by various other means. Perhaps ‘humanity’ will cease and we will just become more cyborg-like? Who knows? One thing for sure is we struggle with mass communication; we are mostly mad as a bag of badgers; struggle to manage information and crap at long term planning & prioritising. On the flip side we are often stubborn and highly adaptable.

If we were mostly sane we would basically be superhuman. Sadly perhaps 0.01% of people are ‘sane any any given moment though :D

To state that scientists have been wrong all of the time is blatantly false. Newton was not ‘wrong’ just because Einstein came along with more accurate equations. — I like sushi

I mean the totality of the theses of every single scientist in every generation. Most of the theses can be said to have turned out to be wrong. I really think of all scientists up to the most unknown.

The best data we have (from numerous sources) does strongly point to human impact being highly influential in regards to climate change (a very, very basic understand of greenhouse gases shows this). — I like sushi

The greenhouse theory is a neat theory. But I think it simplifies. As I said before, there is a gigantic knowledge void about the processes that take place between and within each sphere in Earth vicinity (Ionosphere, stratosphere, ignorosphere and so on). On the other hand, it is said that these spheres are important to understand the weather and the climate. There arises a paradox from my point of view. e.g. Until the 1990s, weather phenomena such as sprites were not known, and reports of them by pilots were considered fantastical. Now we know that they exist and that they also have an influence on the weather.

That said, there is undoubtedly more to climate change than we know about given that such cycles cover vast periods of time — I like sushi

So I totally agree with that.

Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years), yet we could effectively end civilisation by the end of the century by various other means. — I like sushi

Even if the climate alarmists are right, I think it is highly speculative that we can do anything directly about climate change. We can only adapt. And then it also becomes dangerous when the panic is used for political purposes.

Certain predictions regarding water behavior would then simply be uncertain. An analogy to climate. — spirit-salamander

The temperature at which water boils isn’t uncertain.

How often have scientists been wrong in history? Actually, all the time. There is no reason to believe them, especially when they become absolutist with their ideas. — spirit-salamander

So there’s no reason to believe scientists, but Bjorn Lomborg is a citable source.

There’s every reason to believe when the evidence is overwhelming — which it is. You’d know this if you spent a little time reading beyond the WSJ editorial pages and fringe books by pundits and other non-climatologists.

But they seem to me to be more objective than the media coverage. — spirit-salamander

What media coverage are you referring to, exactly? Give any example.

Regardless, I’m not talking about the media, I’m talking about the scientific community. The IPCC is hardly mass media.

As said, the knowledge of the operations between the sun and the earth spheres is absolutely deficient. — spirit-salamander

No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim?

Relying on what the current state of science says is not a good thing. — spirit-salamander

And the alternative to the overwhelming evidence and consensus is what? Bjorn Lonborg?

Sorry, but I’ll stick with the people who know what they’re talking about, having studied the issue all their lives.

So you would prefer to silence someone like me? That is, ban me from all online discussions. — spirit-salamander

No. Nor have I said saying remotely like that. You’re simply ignorant about climate science and have been taken in by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg. That’s not a crime.

Please stop making things up.

Today's science believes that the Earth's climate is an isolated thing: the climate changes largely because of greenhouse gases, and processes that come from outside the Earth are said to have only marginal influence.

I think it is the other way around. — spirit-salamander

Today’s science says NOTHING of the kind. Please cite any source that makes this claim.

This is more fabrication.

Begging your pardon, but you’re just another example of someone who’s been duped in my view. This cheap, uninformed skepticism you’re displaying isn’t an accident. The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented.

It’s funny to see that climate deniers make many of the same arguments as creationists.

The temperature at which water boils isn’t uncertain. — Xtrix

I'm not talking about boiling the water. That should have been obvious after all. I think more about e.g. cloud formation as one example.

So there’s no reason to believe scientists, but Bjorn Lomborg is a citable source. — Xtrix

Now you're reading me uncharitable. I never said Lomberg was right. Only that he holds a different opinion that might be right.

I mean the totality of the theses of every single scientist in every generation. Most of the theses can be said to have turned out to be wrong. I really think of all scientists up to the most unknown. — spirit-salamander

You’d know this if you spent a little time reading beyond the WSJ editorial pages and fringe books by pundits and other non-climatologists. — Xtrix

This is an expression of your bias.

Regardless, I’m not talking about the media, I’m talking about the scientific community. The IPCC is hardly mass media. — Xtrix

But I have talked about the media, and by that I mean reports, documentaries on television. Koonin, I know you don't take him one iota seriously, but he still said that a reason for strong alarmism isn't to be found in the scientific paper, but is generated only by the IPCC or UN Council and eventually raised immensely in the news.

No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim? — Xtrix

Yes, it is. Read scientific articles about this, and you will discover that I am right. This is where my argument lies. What would you say if I were right per impossibile. Would it make you doubt? Please answer me this question, because your answer would interest me very much.

And the alternative to the overwhelming evidence and consensus is what? Bjorn Lonborg? — Xtrix

No alternative. One should only not lose one's mind and lay down one's life for the time-conditioned current state of science.

No. — Xtrix

Good, I only got the vague impression from you that it might be so.

Today’s science says NOTHING of the kind. — Xtrix

So the influence from outside can be very large after all? So the earth and its climate is not a closed system in your view?

Begging your pardon, but you’re just another example of someone who’s been duped in my view. This cheap, uninformed skepticism you’re displaying isn’t an accident. — Xtrix

No, it is not cheap skepticism. If you knew the critical history of science and also read philosophy of science, you might get similar ideas. The alarmism deniers or the man-made climate change deniers I evaluate, I admit, only intuitively. I trust my judgment of human nature that they take it seriously. I can be wrong, of course. It is only enough for me that they are intellectually honest, which does not mean that they are right.

The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented. — Xtrix

Climategate was also a real thing.

It’s funny to see that climate deniers make many of the same arguments as creationists. — Xtrix

Now you're getting arrogant and taking cheap shots. I don't deny climate change, I believe all aspects of the universe are subject to flux. But what do the creationists have to do with all this?

By the way, do you think that your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would have advised to take empirical science at face value? Since you have read them, you know that they would all be enemies of scientism.

Apparently you don't take my questions seriously. I repeat, do you think astrology has been debunked? I just need a yes or no.

Now you're reading me uncharitable. I never said Lomberg was right. Only that he holds a different opinion that might be right. — spirit-salamander

Okay, so we have on the one hand the scientific community, where there's 98% consensus due to years of accumulated evidence and research that overwhelmingly points to human activity (deforestation, burning fossil fuels, etc.), and on the other hand someone who is not a climate scientist who has been shown to use misleading data.

You, who clearly have no real knowledge of the evidence of this matter, have chosen to throw in with the latter. I can only assume for political reasons, as is usually the case. Republicans in the US, for example, are much more likely to be climate deniers -- and that's not an accident. It's because of the media they consume.

But I have talked about the media, and by that I mean reports, documentaries on television. Koonin, I know you don't take him one iota seriously, but he still said that a reason for strong alarmism isn't to be found in the scientific paper, but is generated only by the IPCC or UN Council and eventually raised immensely in the news. — spirit-salamander

The IPCC is "alarmist"?

Regarding Koonin, Scientific American said it best in response to his work:

The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).

physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert criticized Koonin's 2014 commentary in The Wall Street Journal, "Climate Science Is Not Settled,"[23] as "a litany of discredited arguments" with "nuggets of truth ... buried beneath a rubble of false or misleading claims from the standard climate skeptics' canon."

Again, you're choosing to follow non-climate scientists. This shows your bias, nothing more. You claim neutrality, but you've chosen a side already and it's evident from your sources, which have so far been 100% climate "skeptics."

No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim?
— Xtrix

Yes, it is. — spirit-salamander

No, it isn't.

Read scientific articles about this, and you will discover that I am right. — spirit-salamander

I just asked you what the basis was for such a claim, and you say "read scientific articles about this." WHAT scientific articles do you have in mind? By all means share. I didn't make the claim -- you did. The onus is on you to provide support for that claim. If you can't do that, then I'll take it for what it is and what's quickly becoming a theme for you: fabrication.

What would you say if I were right per impossibile. Would it make you doubt? Please answer me this question, because your answer would interest me very much. — spirit-salamander

Formulate a coherent question and I'll gladly answer. The above makes no sense.

One should only not lose one's mind and lay down one's life for the time-conditioned current state of science. — spirit-salamander

Good -- because no one is doing that, except in your fantasy world of fabrication. What we're doing is following the overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening at a rapid pace, accelerated by human activity. Read the post where I lay this out in basic terms; if you have questions, raise it with that. The evidence is straightforward and it doesn't take long to read.

So the earth and its climate is not a closed system in your view? — spirit-salamander

"Closed system"? This is meaningless. No climatologist is claiming, or ever has claimed, that human activity is EXCLUSIVELY the cause of climate change. Ever. That, again, is pure fabrication.

What climate scientists have done, your beliefs notwithstanding, is account for natural factors and natural variation. The rate of change we see is far beyond any natural factor. That includes clouds, volcanoes, the sun, or any of the other claims that have been launched by climate deniers for the last several decades.

No, it is not cheap skepticism. — spirit-salamander

It's exactly that.

If you knew the critical history of science and also read philosophy of science, you might get similar ideas. — spirit-salamander

Yes, I would recommend you read some history of science and philosophy of science. So far you've demonstrated you know about as much of either as you do about climate science -- viz., next to nothing.

I trust my judgment of human nature that they take it seriously. I can be wrong, of course. It is only enough for me that they are intellectually honest, which does not mean that they are right. — spirit-salamander

Yes, you are wrong. They're not intellectually honest. In fact it's been repeatedly shown that this is the case. Yet you go with them over the science community. Odd.

The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented.
— Xtrix

Climategate was also a real thing. — spirit-salamander

:roll:

On the other hand, says Ward, climategate did damage public policy-making in the UK and in other western countries. “Rightwing politicians, allied with fossil fuel companies, used their influence to spread false claims about the emails and to argue against policies to cut fossil fuel use. That propaganda campaign still continues today.” The use of illegally hacked emails in Climategate also shows deniers will resort to all sorts of underhand methods to confuse the public, Ward added. “I am sure they would do the same again today – so scientists are going to have to remain vigilant and be ready to fight back at any time.”

Another denialist talking point.

But what do the creationists have to do with all this? — spirit-salamander

Just that they say very similar things: "the science is unsettled," "science has been wrong," "how do we know for sure?", "there's no evidence," etc., and try to pretend that there's a rigorous "debate" between "evolutionists" (their word) and creationists. They try to portray themselves as skeptics and scientists who simply have a different interpretation of the evidence -- for example, that the Genesis flood was responsible for the fossils we see on earth.

Yeah, sure, maybe they're right too. "Who knows"?

The whole thing is just childish. If you talk to a climate scientist and come to them with your questions and skepticism, which is perfectly reasonable, they can answer your questions. Perhaps some questions aren't answerable -- and much is still uncertain, no doubt. But what you're engaging in isn't that -- it's taking climate "skeptics" positions and talking points and dressing it up as being a neutral observer. Yet you've demonstrated zero understanding of the evidence so far -- zero. You cite only climate "skeptics," you talk about how we can't trust the scientific community, you talk about "climate gate", "mass media hysteria," "alarmism," etc. All this points to the same direction: you've made up your mind already, and have indeed taken a side without the slightest effort to understand the evidence.

You've also hand-waved at a post of mine explaining climate change in detail, saying something about the use of "scientific graphs" while ignoring the rest. I doubt you read it. But it would do you some good to do so.

So let's not pretend this is anything but dressed up denial. If you deny the human impact of climate change, you're a climate change denier. And that's what you're doing.

By the way, do you think that your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would have advised to take empirical science at face value? Since you have read them, you know that they would all be enemies of scientism. — spirit-salamander

This has nothing to do with "scientism." Please stop using terms you don't understand.

Yes, they would take science very seriously indeed. Certainly from Descartes (one of the "founders" of modern science) onward -- and that's obvious to anyone who's read them.

At "face value" is meaningless to me -- you can simply look at the evidence and arguments and make a decision as a layperson. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming; to deny it is ignorance, pure and simple.

I repeat, do you think astrology has been debunked? I just need a yes or no. — spirit-salamander

Of course it has. Astrology is nonsense. Astronomy, on the other hand, is fascinating.

Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years) — I like sushi

Thanks for the cristal ball gazing. Most reassuring, if you believe this kind of stuff.

The current climate debate tends strongly towards a psychogenic and sociogenic mass phenomenon, keyword alarmism, which I think is dangerous, because you lose your cool head, which you need in case of any possible danger. One should just take an in-depth look at the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the criticism of science, to be more relaxed. I am very skeptical of climate modeling. Human beings imagine that they can model everything. That is hubris. The world is always much, much more complex than we think. — spirit-salamander

A pleasure to read your post.
Many post-modern ills are - if not exactly caused - certainly exacerbated by our blindness to the functional importance of J.S.Mills treatise concerning individual liberty and the utility of free speech. Speech, Thought and Ideas are the vital ingredients that sustain civilisation and help buttress the human tendency towards barbarity. Jordan Peterson repeatedly makes the point, that, there is little technical distinction between censoring free speech and censoring thought. The history of Science is a history of ideas that challenged orthodoxy.

Attempts at developing general purpose Artificial Intelligence has been stymied by the problem of Computational Explosion; As you state:"The world is always much, much more complex than we think."
Neither a computer, nor a human can identify all of the data, model all of the alternatives and their subsequent consequences to determine the optimum decision. If discourse is limited to orthodoxy we cannot hope to solve any complex problems.

Nuclear Power is one proven source of energy production that could consistently deliver the necessary base-load power required by modern cities without the burning of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the climate orthodoxy is risk averse to the use of Nuclear Power and so there is only muted public discourse on this subject.

Whilst, there are concerns and risks posed by Nuclear Energy Reactors: i.e. Chernobyl, Fukushima...the latest technical solutions can substantially mitigate those risks and some suggest they may even eliminate most of them. Either way, if Climate Change is an existential threat then, even in the worst case, the more localised threats associated with Nuclear Reactors are solutions that should have been pursued decades ago. The fact that they have not been is so fundamentally irrational that it cannot help but raise concerns that the climate hysteria is driven by something other than science.

I just asked you what the basis was for such a claim, and you say "read scientific articles about this." WHAT scientific articles do you have in mind? By all means share — Xtrix

So my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. And very little about the processes in and between these layers.

Why is this important? Well, the denier of man-made climate change, needs to show that other factors are of much greater importance to climate change. That is, after all, what the debate is about. No one is denying change per se.

That other factors are mainly responsible for climate change I can't show to your satisfaction yet, unfortunately, but I can point out by means of mainstream science articles that we really still know very little about the possible other factors such as solar influence. I honestly think we also know less than the articles would have us believe.

There are therefore good reasons to be skeptical, to say the least. Skeptical about the fact that humans alone really control the climate and can change it through CO2 emissions or reduction. It is probably hubris to believe that we are changing the climate, and more likely that we are simply helplessly exposed to it. After all, before there was any human being, there was already climate change. And The Science says that in an ice age, in which we are, the climate is particularly unstable.

There are countless articles more. These are just the ones I could find at first go:



Venus: the hot spot

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration



THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE

Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?

[...]

Solar storms and periods of heightened solar activity appear to speed up Earth's atmospheric loss significantly, by more than a factor of three. However, key questions remain: How do ions escape, and where do they originate? What processes are at play, and which is dominant?”

https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere#:~:text=Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking.,are%20still%20many%20open%20questions



No-fly zone: Exploring the uncharted layers of our atmosphere

It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet. It’s a realm where planes can’t fly, balloons can’t float, and satellites soon plunge to a fiery end. So seldom have we visited it and so scanty is our knowledge of it that some scientists call it the ignorosphere.

This slice of the atmosphere is, at the same time, forbidden and forbidding. It holds both the coldest and the hottest air on Earth. It hosts elusive, shimmering clouds that can only be seen at night. And its moods can change in an instant, as turbulent winds from lower down mix with plasma arriving from the sun.

This unknown zone increasingly matters to us. We are sending up ever more satellites, which are vulnerable to flare-ups in the ignorosphere. Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/



Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond




New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.

[...]

Everything that happens in the Sun's outer atmosphere is dominated by the magnetic field, but we have very few measurements of its strength and spatial characteristics, Kuridze said.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html



What is Space Plasma?


Despite what a lot of people think, space isn't actually empty, and the Earth's magnetosphere is no exception! The magnetosphere is full of plasma of many different temperatures and densities - though most of it is too tenuous to see with the naked eye or even with a telescope. The air at sea level has a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 20 degrees C. The densest, coldest part of the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma



Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System


Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193




The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890



Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?

Earth’s atmosphere still holds many secrets for science, but with the latest satellite launches and long-running observations from the ground, we are now gathering far more and better quality data about the weather and climate than ever before.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere




Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends

Better understanding of causes of stratospheric trends and whether they are properly represented in climate models also has implications for understanding recent tropospheric climate change

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035




Mysteries of some atmospheric halos remain unexplained after 5,000 years

The origins of some atmospheric optical illusions remain unknown, even after millennia of observation.

https://www.space.com/atmospheric-halo-inventory-mystery-unsolved




Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity

The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity




Mysterious new type of Northern Lights spotted in the ‘ignorosphere’

“In terms of physics, this would be an astounding discovery, as it would represent a new and previously unobserved mechanism of interaction between the ionosphere and the atmosphere.”

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/new-northern-lights-discovered-dunes




The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View

Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos. If these fields date back to the Big Bang, they could solve a major cosmological mystery.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/




Climate 'mysteries' still puzzle scientists, despite progress

Scientists are still unsure what part clouds play "in the energy balance of the planet" and their influence on the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, he said.

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-climate-mysteries-puzzle-scientists.html



Is There a Greenhouse Effect in the Ionosphere, Too? Likely Not

Controversial observations of long-term changes in the ionosphere appear to be explained by the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity, not human greenhouse gas emissions.

Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not



'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun

NASA satellites have uncovered giant magnetic ropes linking the Earth's atmosphere to the Sun and channelling solar energy to create the spectacular northern and southern lights shows.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232



Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so

Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.

We need to understand what we're looking at close-up in order to get a sense of the bigger picture. I hope this is a step towards understanding the magnetic field of our whole Galaxy, and of the Universe."

This might even, West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/

my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. And very little about the processes in and between these layers. — spirit-salamander

That is true as far as you are concerned: you know indeed very little about these things. But others do know much more than you do, because they have studied those things.

Knowing more is relative. Yes, they know more than I do. Still, they would say they know very little and are only beginning to slowly understand these things. My opinion is an interpretation of their little knowledge. And it is well-founded, as I show via the articles.