It's all over but for the sweating?

[Alteredstory]

As to "too late", that depends entirely on your definition. I think it's too late to stop the planet from warming throughout the rest of our lifetimes. I do not think it's too late to slow that warming down (making it easier to cope with), to prepare for it (minimizing the damage and suffering caused), and to encourage the climate system to wind down and move back to a more stable climate that's friendly to our species and those we currently live with.

It's a matter of perspective. I tend to be fairly optimistic about what we can do from where we are, but I try to be realistic about the latter. A number of feedback loops are in full swing, and we're nowhere near to being off of fossil fuels, so the warming will continue and get worse.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I don't think the OP is saying it is "all over" - just that we are guaranteed to sweat more in the future.

Do we stake the future of all life on the planet on your opinion (that climate change is bollocks), or do we take the studied analysis of almost every scientist who is working on the problem?

You will have to remind me were I say "that climate change is bollocks", as opposed to some stuff on some websites. Are you stating the internet = truth ?

[P-hack]

Ugh, we are the champions of causing extinctions.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Ugh, we are the champions of causing extinctions.

Are you really really really sure of that ? Please state why we win vs nature ?

Hint, Dinos - see any of them today ?

[P-hack]

meh, "scientists" are pretty sure the extinction rate is high, but we know all about such figures.
The Extinction Crisis

[P-hack]

We will be eating each other before it is all over good times

[Alteredstory]

I'll look into the conspiracy theory paper and all that more at a later date. With the disclaimer that I am pre-disposed to give little credence to Mcintyre, I'm not seeing any disagreement with the results of the paper, only with whether or not certain people received a survey invite. That means a smaller data pool, so less reliable results, but the criticism I've seen thus far doesn't really touch on that.

[Arragonis]

Richard Tol made a comment about it (which was rejected) but he has pointed out that not all the data for the paper has been released - still hasn't.

There is a counter paper - Legates et al - which is mainly political.

It's not really science though is it? More politics and pretend opinion.

As for McIntyre I noted his impressions at attending a "Heartland" conference a couple of years ago - aka "denier central command".

He noted he was uncomfortable with some aspects of the event and wanted to stick to his analysis and his results.

Which seems kind of sensible to me.

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Richard Tol made a comment about it (which was rejected) but he has pointed out that not all the data for the paper has been released - still hasn't.

There is a counter paper - Legates et al - which is mainly political.

It's not really science though is it? More politics and pretend opinion.

Again, I'll have to read the piece in greater depth, but they did do a study, so the first thing to do is to engage with their practices and results. The Mcintyre blog post casts some doubt on their methodology, but not much, since it's chiefly about a blog post in response, and the timing of it - the emails WERE sent, they just might not have been sent in as conspicuous a manner as they should have been.

I looked for the Legates et al paper, but all I've been able to find is a dead link, a couple things talking about it, and something that seems to be about linguistics. Do you have a link to something specific?

[P-hack]

This is like sports to you two