Climate Change Skepticism

You appear to have created a straw man. Your prompt assumes I am a climate change denier, when it might have been better to have labelled me a man-made climate change skeptic. Not sure chatGPT is the way to go on this one as I'd imagine it will be weighted towards the consensus. There was once a consensus that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Anyway thanks for the link, I enjoyed it.

97% of climate scientists agreeing not good enough for you?

man, the climate apathy on this website discourages me. i thought HN users were smart? yall are blinded by your desire to be a contrarian and skeptic.

Sad you're being downvoted. I have many climate-change denying friends and family members, and these are exactly the arguments they use. So much of it basically boils down to them perceiving the left-wingers as crying wolf for many years. Now we're in a position when most scientists agree the wolf is actually coming, but the right is desensitized and politically incentivized to oppose action. We have to thoroughly understand both sides of a debate if the truth is eventually supposed to

I feel like a lot of the climate change claims are just confirmation bias

This is borderline climate denial, not "calm and reasonable". If you want to tell yourself that things are somehow gonna be fine, then feel free to go ahead. It just doesn't line up with an absolutely overwhelming scientific consensus.

He doesnt challenge scientific consensus. What he does challenge is people making any claim they want then adding "because climate change" at the end which has become a problem. One side will deny climate change and the other side starting taking any claim at face value as long as you say "because climate change"

You seem to keep saying the same old thing, but don't really say anything notable.It's disingenuous of you to imply that GP is talking about a majority other than the scientific community, who know way more than you or me (or GP) about climate change and its possible anthropogenic causes.[edit: the causes aren't doing impressions of humans]

We should question it; that's what science is all about. But there's a huge difference between questioning something and flat out denying its existence due to politics or ignorance, or both. Those same scientists you linked to aren't throwing their hands up in the air, declaring that climate science is all a lie. Rather, they continue to study, to innovate, to question their own methods so they can improve their models and understand climate change.

Guys like you are not able to be convinced. You accept scientific articles such as this one as evidence of "alarmism". But you'll dismiss other scientific articles about climate change because they are "alarmist". You'll cherry-pick whatever's convenient to you. Debating with someone who can't be convinced by rational arguments is futile.