@ExtinctionR The weather people can barely predict what is going to happen the next day. It gets even worse for the next week.

Why should I believe the same people on what the weather is going to be like 10 years from now? 20?

There is also much evidence to the contrary refuting and/or contradicting the "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" threat.

Scientists that want to eat and provide for a family though know where the money comes from. If you are out to prove that man-made climate is wrong and the temps are somewhat fixed you don't get grant money.

Therefore, everybody and their brother tries to develop a theory to continue receiving that green lifeblood.

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR if you are genuinely interested in real conversation and debate, try to read up on the history of climate models. While predicting the weather is a challenge, predicting the climate is way easier.

You can run a climate simulation for months, while the results of a weather simulation are already outdated after a few hours. Also a lot of weather fluctuations average out over time, even though they are relevant for weather predictions.

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR we have global climate models since the 1970s that can predict the climate change. The models got more precise since then, but the newer models only confirmed the earlier results.

In the 1990s, weather models were still only about 70% accurate in predicting the next day's temperature. The fact that we can even try to predict the weather more than a few days in advance is a fairly recent development.

Climate prediction: relatively easy
Weather prediction: really hard

@weddige @ExtinctionR I can agree with what you are saying. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a scientist. I can only use my eyes, ears, and brain.
I see climate #agendas that constantly change trying to keep up and explain why previous predictions were wrong and why the current stuff is happening.
I see actual scientists that have just as many credentials, if not more than some, disagreeing with the current agenda. Yet, they are blacklisted.

I also DO think that the climate is changing. It has always changed for as long as Earth has been here. To say it's #man-made though I have my #doubts. I'm not opposed to changing my view if I see something that proves that point.

I do think man has fucked up our #oceans. #Plastic and #microplastics have destroyed ecosystems and #food supplies. I think we have over fished and over hunted. And I think man has done a lot of damage to our current way of sustaining life.

I don't think cow farts are our biggest threat.

Yet, for man-made #climate change, I remain skeptical.

Some of the most vocal people for climate activism haven't changed a damn thing in their own lives. They just expect me and everyone else to do so.

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR You are touching on a couple of topics here that are too big for a simple online discussion. I'll try to add some thoughts of my own, but please understand if I don't answer everything (or anything).

1/

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR

Climate agenda: The fact that climate scientists have an "agenda" is inherent in them being human - In the face of the greatest challenge to human existence in the last million years or so, I can't expect anyone not to be emotionally involved. It is a challenge to stay calm and objective, but one that the science community is IMHO handling remarkably well. Humanity as a whole, not so much.

2/

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR

Blacklisted scientists: I think this comes from a different understanding of credibility. On the one hand there is formal education and titles, and on the other hand there is reputation among peers. For the general public, only the former is really accessible. Within the scientific community, the latter is more important. Often the two overlap, but when they don't, there is a dissonance: "Why doesn't anyone take this professor seriously?"

3/

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR

It may not be immediately clear to someone outside the specific community why someone isn't being taken seriously, and ignoring someone goes against societal expectations. But refuting every conflicting study when there is already a broad consensus can cripple new research; this kind of dissent has been used to sow mistrust in the past (e.g. with the question of whether smoking is unhealthy), and there's really no good way to deal with it.

4/

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR

Man-made climate change: We know about the greenhouse effect of CO2 since 1896 and in all the models CO2 is the main driver of warming. Modern models include more greenhouse gases, but CO2 is still the main factor.

Since 1750, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 50%. Using an isotope analysis similar to carbon dating, we can identify the source of this additional CO2, which is fossil fuels.

5/

@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR

CO2 levels have always changed, but over tens of thousands of years. For at least the last 800,000 years (probably longer) the CO2 concentration has never been higher than 300ppm. In the last 200 years we have managed to get it up to 420ppm.

Since I was born in 1987, the CO2 concentration has increased by over 20%, which means that no person born today will ever breathe as fresh air as I did as a child.

6/6