king_mosiah: Oh please, while "climate change" (formally called global warming and global cooling decades before that) is a thing that IS in fact happening.....BUT, its ALWAYS been happening, and always will even if humanity never started to walk upright, but corrupt people and politicians take it and make a Pseudoreligion out of it to (see if this sounds familiar) guilt stupid people out of their money, and political support, because buying carbon offsets and driving a crappy Chevy Volt, somehow makes up for all the polluting (cough sinning cough) you do just by living in the modern world.......as always forgive my so-so grasp of the English language
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded in 1988 - it never had another name. At that point 'Climate Change' as a term had long, been established. The confusion around Global Warming (a cause [and itself the effect of atmospheric changes]) and Climate Change (effect - though that's rough and tumble, given feedbackloops) is down to media and news reporting - which is a lot more in the grasp of lobbyism and ideology, rather than factual and evidence based reasoning, than the scientific community(*) is. The terms always meant something different and never, in proper scientific debate, have been used interchangeable.
'Global cooling' never had much traction, at all, in the scientific debate - that one was a media invention. Papers as far back as 1959 estimated CO2 increase by about 25% from the base rate taken from 1850 to 2000 - not too far of the actual increase of 29%.
That climate changes is true - but it never did at the rate it did by now. Given that there's now a 95% agreement among scientists that it is, in deed, man made continuing to claim otherwise is pure nonsense. That argument has been decided, many times over. Bacteria - aeons and aeons ago - managed to change the atmosphere to a much more drastic level, so, yes, humans are very capable of having a global effect. And to stop, straight away some of the typical protests about financial background or some form of conspiracy:
A] If anyone could come up with any evidence that would stand up and conceivably disprove all this research for decades and decades now - they'd be nailed on to stand as one of the greatest scientists ever; guaranteed to win the Nobel price (and not just in one category!). You really think there's not a single scientist that would do so?
B] Underlying that argument you made is also the assumption that scientists that study the environment are somehow not interested in it. The contrary - even if the language of science is dry and objective - these people are really, really passionate about this planet; for the large part at least. If they weren't I doubt they'd devote their life to studying it in that detail. If they were able to conclusively say it's all not a problem; it'll all going to be fine, by hell they would. They'd be out celebrating if they could. See also A].
C] It's completely discrediting the scientific method - and with that ALL of our scientific knowledge - to see this as something made up. These researchers are under intense scrutiny [see A] by their peers. After these decades of research - if it all were just made up by cherry-picked data someone would have unravelled that particular thread. No-one has. Suggesting it's in any way feasible that no-one would requires you to believe in a conspiracy. Too much of the information is available and scientists are a far too diverse and organised far too loosely for that to be feasible on a world wide scale. There is competition here - see [A] and
, too,
Finally - carbon offsets and similar methods ARE indeed a con - and likewise not covered by the science: This is not due to a new 'Pseudoreligion' however, but the same old capitalism and marketing heavily selling products that somehow fulfil people's emotional, but not necessarily practical and reasonable, needs. What we need - and what you'll find if you actually read the IPCC reports and recommendations is to radically transform the way our societies utilise energy (not just electricity!). We do have a lot of technology, already, that could do much of that. Cut down on needless transport, localise business, use remote working wherever and however possible, absolutely focus on insulation and similar energy conserving techniques alongside a massive R&D push into new technology. That's a policy issue, of course. The massive goal short term is to just get the CO2 emissions down - the long term has to be to transform to a sustainable society proper - and on a global scale. Hard work, likely unlikely to happen (and with that turning our atmosphere and climate into one no longer benevolent to us) - but still possible.
(*) This is not to say that science is a 'perfect' system - but it is one with a lot more checks and balances and proper scrutiny and accountability involved than most other human endeavours. On the actual science part, that is, not necessarily in respect to administration and management.
