I have been watching a series of videos that I like. You may be interested in his climate talks.

(http://www.youtube.com/c/MallenBaker)

I really like this mans approach. I have some minor disagreements but overall he seems to be less ideologically driven than most people.

His take on Climate Change almost matches mine. Yes there is warming, yes it somewhat follows the IPCC estimates even thought the predictions seem to indicate an exaggeration. Although he goes into the different effects at different altitudes or atmospheric layers he may not have covered that as well as he should have because in the upper atmosphere the changes in co2 behavior is pronounced. Since the upper atmosphere is actually cooling as expected it seems that it may be working as kind of a thermostat. I'm not actually able to comment on what he got wrong beyond that.

My position has remained constant for 20 years. For political reasons the climate scientists intentional exaggerated the warming over the next 50 years. It was foolish, lying is never a good idea if you are making predictions. That said warming will have significant long term effects unless some unknown changes in solar radiation counter act it. The jury is still out on our ability to predict solar activity so the assumptions made by the IPCC that it will remain reasonably stable seem a good bet. What I don't agree with most experts on is that climate is more important than weather. You can adapt to climate change but not weather changes. All you need is knowledge of history not science to see that for the foreseeable future the biggest threat to human well being is short term changes in weather. By that I mean things caused by such factors as volcanic activity that have short term impacts. A year without a summer would significantly effect world food supplies and such events are well recorded the historic record. The other thing that concerns me is that little attention has been given to how near plant starvation levels co2 had gotten prior to the increased use of fossil fuels. It should be a matter of common sense that too little co2 is a bigger concern than too much and the same is true for warmth. Nothing grows on ice.

I also question the reliability of the projections that suggest co2 is causing a mass extinction. There are simply too many other factors that could be causing the decrease in biodiversity. Again common sense suggests that cooling is a bigger threat to biodiversity than warming. I grant that it is the speed of change not the change itself we are concerned with but still it doesn't ring true to me.

I'm no expert so I could be completely off base but so far my predictions have been fairly accurate. With so much uncertainty we need a common sense approach. Common sense is something I'm exploring in the philosophy thread unrelated to anything specific but could be of interest to anyone reading this.

Finally it is clear to me that the take no risk attitude is a mistake. It was a mistake with Covid 19 and is likely the wrong approach for climate change. It is one of the problems that arises out of specialization. The technocrats focus too narrowly. There are a wide range of problems that need addressed but if you rely on the experts you will only focus on the ones they are experts in. We have put a tremendous amount of research resources into the effects of co2 and ignored to a large degree what the background temperature that co2 effects are measured against. There is also a lot of basic science and mathmatics that are being underfunded because of the obsession with co2. It is very likely that we simply have not noticed something worse than climate change.