What do you think should be done about climate change?

[Pemalite]

numberwang said:

SpokenTruth said:

OK, before I actually address the thread question, I have a question for all the skeptics out there. 

Do you honestly believe all the climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, zoologists, chemists, geologists, physicists, glaciologists, atmospheric dynamacists, oceanographers, paleontologists, ecologists, biochemists, mathematicians, etc...from nearly 200 countries (some at war with each other) around the world that study and confer agreement based on their own independent, respective fields are all in on some grand hoax with the intent to deceive you?

The 97% consensus? That was a literal hoax by a man named Cook who pretended to have read 12K scientific papers (he lied). Only a small minority of researches actually support the "climate change is mostly (>50%) caused by anthropogenic CO2 + catastrophic" assumption. 

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus... Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

There is a only consensus that climate has always changed.

NASA seems to place credibility in that 97% figure, I think as an outlet they have more legitimacy over a website that looks like it was designed on Geocities by a teenager in the 90's that ONLY propagates anti-climate change rhetoric in order to reinforce other peoples confirmation biases.
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I mean for shits and giggles, from the website link you provided... They place more credibility in the Catholic Church over empirical scientific evidence, which is just bull-twiddle. - This is why we have people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccines are toxic... Because people put more credibility in dubious sources of information.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/13/realist-catholic-climate-declaration/

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm suggesting the theories being thrown about arent necessarily the real ones. Ya know, like suggesting there is no future for teens. Instead the media likes to pick the most extreme scenarios to galvanize people often to support a certain party.

I think its funny people become defensive about science in general when Im talking about the stuff thats clearly bogus. In a nut shell, not all science is equal. I dont think all scientists have come to the same conclusion or recommend the same solutions, thats more vague.

The skeptics on climate change arent really skeptics per se. People can acknowledge it as a reality but not believe the propaganda as well. The repercussions of antivaxers is more obvious. Even the homeless situation has revived some classic diseases.

Some areas will see the impacts of climate change far more readily than other geographical areas, that's the reality of it all.

Those in the equatorial areas of the world on islands are feeling the pressures now, today... With increases in global temperatures resulting in higher sea-levels, essentially swallowing up their homes.
Those island states will be the first casualties of climate change and we as western nations will (sadly) need to open up our doors to let them migrate as they are going to be climate refugees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/10/24/kiribati/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati#Environmental_issues

So whilst the "extreme" claims propagated by some (For and against!) can be regarded as bullshit, the issues presented are often very real, it just depends on the time scales we are talking about.