Can't the reverse also be a problem? If you must have definitive proof that climate change directly caused an individual problem, then climate change will never meet that criteria until things are so bad that it is obvious and too late to do anything about it.
logicalmonster|3 years ago
Of course. But if you have the crowd who fly around on private jets to environmental conferences telling the proles that they need to quit eating meat, eat the bugs, live in the pod, and sacrifice more to solve a problem, I think it's fair to ask that the case be very strongly made without appealing to Science (TM) and trying to browbeat people into submission.
And I'm not seeing it. I've lived long enough to see past climate predictions being total bunk: a new ice age was one worry, global warming, acid rain devastating cities, etc. Now we're just hammered with "climate change" and many real and far more provable environmental problems like the health of the oceans are comparatively ignored.
As far as likelihood goes, I don't think I have all of the answers, but the number of ifs involved in the entire chain of climate change dogma makes the worst case scenario seem very unlikely to me.
If the climate is changing, is it caused by man? There are some who point out things like natural sun changes might be the bigger issue involved with changing climate and that the world has constantly gone through hot/cold cycles.
If it's caused by man, is it actually inevitably going to cause overall harm? A changing climate might be a bad thing in certain areas, but large areas of the world could also become more livable and lead to more vegetation and farming elsewhere, and a net plant increase on the planet.
If it's causing harm, can we resolve it? Assuming that the climate is changing and it's caused by man, and it causes harm, can we do anything to solve it? I'm not sure. There are some activists who suggest that even if we quit all CO2 emissions today, the planet is already inevitably beyond doomed.
If we can resolve it, is the benefit greater than the cost? Most of us alive have had the pleasure of living in relatively stable and prosperous situations compared to all of human history. Doing what some climate activists want to do like eliminate certain kinds of energy usage very quickly may dramatically harm the lives of many more people than might be saved from the natural disasters/weather. The amount of human misery that can be caused by bad economic policies might far outweigh any problems caused by climate change.
The only thing I'd say in conclusion is whether or not climate change is real, nuclear energy is the only workable answer that all sides should be able to agree on. Regardless of your stance on the climate, everybody recognizes that cheap energy that doesn't pollute and that can power industry is a big win. Until battery technology makes several quantum leaps in efficiency, nuclear energy is the only possible answer to climate change as well the needs of humanity.
DoctorOW|3 years ago
I don't understand your problem with using scientific arguments. I think that you reject evidence conceptually and are "not seeing" any climate change is a self-refuting argument if you're willing to think about it. Especially since anyone who is vocal about this crisis will say it's systemic and there are maybe less than 100 people who could, if they wanted to, dedicate their resources and solve this in our lifetime. The reason climate change is seemingly eternal and difficult to solve is because the biggest polluters aren't going to stop and we can't make them.
Here's more info on the systemic issues if you're open to any data or new ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice
vba616|3 years ago
If you have unlimited electricity, why bother reinventing all the infrastructure for battery powered vehicles? You can just make liquid fuel out of air and water.
I believe the US Navy has been testing this sort of thing so that carriers can be self-sufficient at sea.