https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ERL.....8b4024C/abstract

I don't think the questions is "has the climate changed?" I think it's how much affect have humans had on that change, and how disastrous is it exactly (honestly) not in some hyperbolic bullshit Green New Deal way of claiming we have 12 years left

Well, we need to take a look at the meta-analysis survey that Cook made. In the third quote, it says:

“a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer reviewed literature that humans are responsible.”

It is a misconception that humans are responsible: that is what we call enhanced climate change. Climate change is a natural occurring process, the Earth has been through several glacial and interglacial periods.

Yes, I agree with that, but I'm not a climate scientist

We have simply added, because of our use of greenhouse gases.

I can't answer the question of how disastrous is it, and what do we need to do to mitigate it

I am also skeptical of people being honest about what actions we need to take

The Paris Accord seemed like a nonsensical thing to do

So you’re not really sceptical of climate change, nor enhanced climate change. Instead you are skeptical of humans being solely responsible for climate change?

Green New Deal is nonsensical

Are you still skeptical of the 97% figure after reading what Throttles said?

I'm willing to accept that we have had some effect, but I can't quantify it

But you can't quantify it, because you're admittedly not a scientist, yes?

the 97% number is generally used to say that climate change is anthropogenic, which if I understand that correctly, means completely caused by humans

and I don't think that's true

Hi sorry to interrupt what’s this about?

Okay. So science is an empirical and falsifiable method that gathers data from observation and makes predictions of what could happen in the future. What climate scientists typically do is, gather the data of amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere and then settle on a prediction that at the specified rate, this could cause X, which could lead to Y.

can climate models that stretch out decades be trusted? I also question that

This of courses look at the greenhouse gases from not only human use, but natural use.

I would say no, study’s like Th ya aren’t always entirely accurate

Somethings could change like that

Bang

The whole study is then false

Also, climategate

why were they talking about hiding shit from FOIA requests

So a scientific model is typically made after enormous amounts of data. In this case, it wouldn’t really be a model imo. But I need to brush up on my definition of one. However, climate predictions are more just warnings, saying that if we go at this rate, then this is what will happen.

if everything is on the up and up

Climate scientists have a vested interest in being alarmist

that doesn't prove they're lying obviously

but why were they discussing bypassing FOIA

I don’t know what that is?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#23d9885927ba

Also, Hal Lewis

Can I see the emails?

They quote some of them in that article I linked

This is what I could find in regards to the email controversy.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails?ref=patrick.net

I think that's from the first climategate

the second one happened in 2011

I mean I get it, of course it could be fabricated

The article says updated 2011