1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

>There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse. That's only true in some cases with strong emphasis on "some". If you want to know how much of that is true and how much is wrong just watch this video link I don't think I can do it justice with a butchered summary on HN but I'll keep it long enough to get you hooked. There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one. We have basically skipped the first phase by emitting CO2 directly. If anything, this should worry us even more because there is evidence that increased temperatures drive CO2 emissions as well. So we haven't skipped the first phase at all, it's going to happen in the future. Feedback loops have been predicted by many scientists. What could happen is this: "man-made CO2 -> higher temperatures -> more CO2 -> even higher temperatures". I recommend you to watch the entire video. Not just the segment I linked. That same content creator also made a whole playlist concerning climate change: ▶ this video

It was my mistake to link to the summary, I was actually referring to the full report in the comments before. As for your quote, it needs to be read in the context of the full paragraph. Its written sloppily, but a better phrasing would be: "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018) in the Netherlands' coast area , within the 1993-2017 record". I.e. they are saying the global trend is not the same as the local (Dutch) trend. Perfectly reasonable. > I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. Well, I could imagine your doubts about sea level rise because they are difficult and uncertain. But there is absolutely no scientific doubt about the role of CO2 in global warming. In fact, CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years . What is uncertain is the predictions because they are influenced by action taken to curb emissions etc. There is a great video series on YouTube by "potholer54" that shows the scientific evidence for it better than I can. The first video is only 10 minutes and addresses the general points rather well. ▶ this video

OK, let's watch this. 0:23-ish: No one in the mainstream media in Australia has ever told anyone about Henry fucking Ergas? Well, this is full of shit already. He also ran Concept Economics. > Concept Economics, the consultancy that recently estimated the costs of the National Broadband Network outweighed the benefits by up to $20 billion, has gone into administration. Sheesh, what is it with these climate skeptics and their businesses going under? 0:48: Lack of action across the world? Most expensive carbon tax in the world? Kind sir, I have a graph to cure that ailment: link Austria is AUT. Australia is AUS, in case there's any confusion following the whiplash you just got by this fact-whipping. 1:18: Thank you for that idiocy. Australia is the world's highest CO2 per capita emitter with any population to speak of, apart from the UAE: link . It has the dirtiest power station in the entire OECD, which alone produce 1/1800th the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet: link You know what, I'm done. I will go on, but considering such a litany of error within a minute and a half, I can spend my time vastly better. But like I said, I'll watch it for amusement value. Meanwhile, you go ahead and watch this: ▶ this video Edit: OK, just wanted to add that the carbon tax does not "cost" 10 billion a year by any means. That's near enough the revenue being raised by the government through carbon pricing and near enough all of it makes it back into the economy through various means. One