If you read the IPCC summary, it labels every prediction with how confident the IPCC is in it, so it sure isn't climate scientists.
You are, of course, assuming there's nothing political going on with the IPCC recommendations in the first place and all the conclusions are honestly driven by nothing more than altruistic desires for the betterment of the human race. Pardon me if I have slightly more skepticism about the UN's motives given their manifestly anti-Western, anti-capitalist, pro-globalist stance. Add to that the prevailing "I don't need to explain it to you because you're too stupid to understand" mantra and what seems "settled science" to you seems anything but for those of us who are actually have to sacrifice for whatever the UN IPCC decides we have to do to satisfy them.
I'm assuming nothing. I'm saying I've not seen any major studies whatsoever addressing the actual impact of the subject beyond "climate change BAD!' Climate has changed since the planet first developed an atmosphere to have climate. It will continue to change at its whim until we develop technology capable of utterly controlling it at our whim. Mankind has always adapted. We will adapt to this. The questions that remain are (a) are we capable of affecting the climate in any meaningful way in the first place and (b) is the cost of attempting to pin the climate to the 20th-century norm higher, lower, or equal to the cost of adapting? If the answer to (a) is "no" then it necessarily negates the second question since our only practical option is adaptation.
In science, the facts are not opinions. They are the experimental results.
Except what you're referring to is not even remotely equivalent to "experimental results." We do not have the capability to "experiment" on a global climate under controlled, observable, repeatable conditions. Instead we build computer models based on how we think the climate actually works, all of which are only as accurate as our understanding of climate -- and that understanding is woefully inadequate. Thus the models are gross simplifications of the actual climate, some of which start with the presupposition that climate change is due to man-made CO2 and work backwards from there to make the data and models fit. The results have been models that accurately predict the past but inaccurately represent the present, or if they accurately represent the present they do not match the past. Over time the models get "massaged" to make things fit, always with the assumption it all must be man-made CO2 at the core of it.
I have a built-in distrust for such procedures because there are no effective ways to challenge or prove them experimentally. Additionally, the core climate community has become largely homogeneous by self-selection, where dissenting voices are banished in order to achieve the desired consensus. Grant money is doled out or withheld depending upon whether the findings will support the agenda of the giver. When big business does this it's called astroturfing, being a shill, etc. and is not to be trusted. When government and "big science" does it it's called "consensus" and questioning it is blasphemy of the highest order. Publishing is similarly segregated with any dissenting voice being treated as a pariah.
Do I believe the climate is changing? Absolutely. It was changing before humans arrived, being both significantly warmer and colder than it is today. It is changing while we're here. It will continue to change despite our wishes because we lack the technology to effectively stop it on short timescales. It's the height of anthropocentric arrogance to think the planet's climate is going to sit still for us just because we happened to develop opposable thumbs at this point in Earth's history.
Do I believe human activity is contributing to climate change? At some level it must be as any activity by definition has some kind of impact. The question then becomes how much are we affecting it and, if we reverse course, will the anticipated benefits outweigh the social and economic upheaval such a reversal would cause? Keep in mind sometimes it is better to adapt to change rather than fight it. Some areas currently too cold for agriculture would become more suited to it while other currently-arable areas would become too hot or dry. Certainly it is disruptive -- any change is -- but is the net result positive, negative, or neutral? Nobody has answered that question. To my knowledge the question isn't even being studied on any reasonable scale. Everything's being thrown into the we-have-to-stop-the-climate-from-changing bandwagon, a fool's errand if there ever was one because climate will merely laugh at our puny efforts.
There used to be a time when scientists welcomed questions and opposing ideas and were eager to put their hypotheses to the test. Today...not so much. "There's too much at stake" they say, to entertain skeptics or those that question. Instead they're labeled as "deniers" and treated like knuckle-dragging inbred simpletons at best or traitors to humanity and murderers at worst. The "we have to do something!" crowd is the loudest, saying we can't wait to get firm data and must enact sweeping changes regardless of what it does to anyone. That the worst effects would be felt by prosperous Western nations while third-world and far East polluters would suffer less or not at all. As that fits the current "punish the West for all ills" popular mantra is more than a little suspect so I'm similarly not inclined to believe or support anyone pushing such "climate reform" that doesn't call for all who benefit equally to pay equally as well.
I'd blame Trump's ilk for that too. If you vilify a group (gays in the Orlando case) long enough some unhinged asshat will decide he's taking action for the greater good.
Somehow I don't think it was Trump vilifying gays (which he has not done, BTW) that pushed a Muslim shouting "Allah Akbar!" to gun down gays in Orlando. Perhaps you're unaware of the standard treatment Muslims visit upon gays in places where Islam is the dominant religion? And I don't think it was Trump that pushed a pair of Muslims to gun down their co-workers at a holiday party in San Bernadino. And so on and so forth.
But hey, go ahead and blame Trump for stubbing your toe in the dark last night, or for the flat tire you got last year, or for the bird shitting on your windshield right after you washed your car. He's obviously the root of all evil and must be blamed for anything and everything you don't like. You look like a goddamned uninformed fool for doing so, but please, by all means, exercise your right to broadcast that fact to the world. It does wonders for your argument.
I am suggesting that you are in denial that a problem even exists, despite the figures, and before you can improve things there you need to change you way of thinking.
No one is in denial that homicide is a problem. Where we differ is the severity of the problem in relation to the severity of the proposed solutions. For example, the most recent statistics show there were over 30,000 automobile deaths last year, far more than deaths due to violent use of a gun. Do you propose banning automobiles? There are nearly 4,000 deaths annually due to drowning in pools, more than violent homicides by firearm, yet I don't hear you calling for a ban on pools.
There is no such thing as a perfectly free yet perfectly safe society and a great deal of harm can be done trying to achieve such a thing. For example, while shootings such as these make gun usage seem uniformly bad, there are no newscasts highlighting positive use of firearms for self defense. Nobody gets any air time when a five-foot, 100lb woman doesn't get raped by a six-foot, 220lb thug because she successfully defended herself with a firearm. There are innumerable permutations on the latter, none of which get any attention. Ban firearms by law-abiding citizens and you guarantee a target-rich environment for criminals, none of which will give a damn about any gun ban laws because criminals do not obey the law.
If you could snap your fingers tomorrow and magically delete every gun in existence then I might agree with your stance. That is impossible and any rational, reasonable person should know that. So long as criminals can get their hands on a weapon do to harm upon me and my family, I absolutely demand the right to legally obtain and wield one of my own for defense.
If everyone had a gun I probably wouldn't be posting this right now.
Far more people have guns than you are probably aware. That's because the vast, huge, overwhelming majority of them are kept for defense instead of assault. There are over 300 million guns in private hands in the United States. If the owners of these decided to be a problem, trust me, you'd be dead by now. That you're not is prima facie evidence of the stupidity of your argument.
Fine. Let's assume for the sake of argument that guns are a fundamentally bad thing and need to be banned. There are over 300 million guns in the United States alone. Please tell me how you plan to get rid of them in such a way that disarms criminals equally as well as it disarms law-abiding citizens.
You can't, and that's the crux of the problem. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Law-abiding people, by definition, do obey the law. Pass a law banning handguns and you guarantee 100% disarmament of law-abiding citizens whilst simultaneously stopping very few if any criminals from getting them. Congratulations! You just made violent gun crime easier for every thug, bank robber, rapist, murderer, and so on. We absolutely need more of that, right?
Every time there's a shooting, people like you come out of the woodwork screaming about how bad guns are and how they must be eliminated. As noted above, there are over 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. Today about 99.99997% of them were not used in a violent criminal way, yet you insist they are a dire threat to anything and everything. Your argument is both irrational and illogical.
Using that metric, everything and anything could "revolutionize the world" so the term becomes meaningless. Such hyperbole should be reserved for usage in things that are a bit more fleshed out and actual candidates for said revolutionizing.
I suppose it means that money is too free, and I suppose the market will correct that.
You meant it sarcastically but your second point is actually correct. People who invest in startups like this have a fiduciary duty to themselves or their firms to investigate what they're investing in. It's all "buyer beware" so I have no sympathy for those who lost money; you plays the game, you takes your chances. If you win -- with a Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. -- you win big. If you lose, you lose big. That's how it's supposed to work.
The net results of crap like this is investors (should) become more wary about what they invest in. They should vet companies before they invest and hold its executives to higher standards than this Nardone idiot was held. All of that is a Good Thing no matter what angle you look at this debacle from.
I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support.
Funny, I saw the protesters as doing exactly what they said they'd do all along: act like a bunch of spoiled babies who didn't get their way and are now throwing a tantrum. They don't rationalize. They don't listen. They don't engage cognitive thinking skills. They distill it down to "you don't agree with me, therefore you are a hateful, mean, stupid, intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler lover and I'm completely justified in doing whatever my emotions lead me to do and you can't criticize me because criticism is racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc."
It's the logical endpoint of the "there is no truth and right/wrong is an illusion" ideology.
If you want to play statistics, you could also say "billions of people did not protest Trump." Hey, sorry if you don't like it but that logic works both ways. You want to minimize the (obvious and improper) damage caused by rioting liberals, I'll be happy to minimize the (pathetically small and insignificant) number or protesters.
1 Mole = 25 Cagey Bees