Another social media climate debate

He says it's a hoax. I ask, "How do you know?" He tells me it's a matter of logic and of looking at raw data, like my thermometer.

I respond: You're telling me to trust raw data like the thermometer outside my window. But that's naive. Small samples of data prove nothing. Climate change data is gathered by interdisciplinary teams looking at ice cores, tree rings, satellite and historical data, etc. Did you know that 97 percent of peer reviewed science articles support the climate conclusions you doubt? When you say you're being logical, I suspect it's the logic of a conspiracy theorist who reasons that it must be true because it's only believed by the three percent who know what's really happening.

Then there's another fellow who agrees with the first. He says the conjecture that, "climate change will reach a tipping point by 2030," claiming, "This is speculation based on computer model projections (not predictions), based," on unproven scientific hypothesis.

I reply: Aside from the fact that projections and predictions are more or less the same thing, I must agree that these assumptions have not been scientifically tested through experiment. It's a little difficult wrapping an experiment  around an entire world climate. The argument is always present, and always valid, that correlation does not equal causation. However the evidence responsible for putting those warning labels on cigarette packages was largely correlational.  Sometimes one can't have the best forms of proof. And on those occasions,  projections, or predictions if you prefer, are what we fall back on. I don't mind if you wait until you have sufficient proof of climate change. But please wait on some other planet, because some of us here would like to take reasonable precautions.

But in replying so, I fail to address the underlying issue which is that the prediction comes from an arm of the United Nations "which seeks to bring less developed nations up to the material cultural level of developed nations, and seeks way to force developed countries to pay to reduce the disparity.  This ignores the fact that the Earth cannot sustain 7-8 billion people living at the standard of living of the United States and some European countries."

So really it's an out-of-pocket issue. There's no way the earth can keep these billions of people living at a standard similar to that of the United States and a few other countries. So I don't get it here. What you're saying then is that you won't make an out-of-pocket sacrifice and so the earth will get hot because you won't share with poor people. Right?

But you don't even know what's being asked of you yet. Perhaps there are blessings in disguise. Yes, you may have to make a few sacrifices. In fact we should all be making those sacrifices. But it's just a collection of little things, like using paper instead of, plastic drinking straws, or better yet not throwing shit in streams. There is much that must be done to make our environment sustainable. Without your cooperation we are already making great strides in renewable energy. With your cooperation we could go further faster.  I think there's an unstated argument here. You believe things should stay exactly as they are. The problem is nothing ever stays as it is. Citizens in developed nations live excessively. Exporting our excesses through a process of globalization doesn't help any. Yes, it's simply too bad that things can't stay the way they are. But that doesn't mean they can't be great up ahead. If eating less meat sounds like a bad thing, maybe it's because you haven't tried it yet or thought about lowering your cholesterol. The point? Don't fear change. Embrace it.