@Trouble: I've been thinking for the past few days about how to effectively respond to this thread.
I watched about 1/2 of one of the videos. Diligently wrote down notes on names and concepts referenced within with the intent to research and share the standard counter-arguments.
But that's not going to make any impact. It's not like there's some magic chart or graph out there that I'm going to show you that's going to change the way you see the topic of climate change, and I've seen the charts and the graphs the climate denial movement has submitted and they have had a similarly harmless effect on my views.
I wonder if there is not some sort of evolutionary biological strategy in play that we are unwitting (unwilling?) participants to. One of the lines I often hear from climate change deniers goes something along the lines of: "climate change alarmists are like lemmings - just marching off the cliff to their collective doom".
What if that were true? What if an intelligent species was so caught up in a predictive fear of a certain outcome that the whole species acted in a single way to avoid the disaster? For instance, what if a community of intelligent animals lived on an island and suddenly, through their study of their environment, perceived that if they continued to cut down the trees on the island, eventually the island's ecosystem would collapse, and the whole colony would die.
So after further study and much debate, most of the members of the community agree they must stop harvesting the wood, even though harvesting that wood had been an important part of their subsistence living for centuries.
But what if they were wrong? What if the community can survive just fine if the trees run out? What if the trees might not actually be running out at all? What if the Stoppers succeed in their efforts to stop harvesting this vital resource anyways?
Everyone stops cutting down the trees, their huts fall into disrepair, children of larger families are unable to build new strong homes for their own families given the new rules. Then, through some unforeseen turn of events, the winters become extraordinarily harsh. Cold rains and snows sweep across the island, and it’s residents foolishly stick to their dogmatic rule to preserve the trees, despite their real and clear need. Fires become banned, because lighting fires can cause trees to catch fire, and the trees must be preserved at all costs because, the lemming Stoppers insist, they are vital to their survival. Unable to recover from the initial brutal winters, the colony collapses in a short number of years. By the time they recognize the error of their ways, their population has dropped to levels too low to survive, and they all die of a freak outburst of chicken pox.
That is one possible outcome that could happen. In this contrived example, it is not the probable outcome. Most of the island trust the collective wisdom of its best minds, and bring about it's actual outcome. Through preservation of the trees and the forest, the island actually prospers. Through keeping the forests intact, and actually nurturing them, the colony preserves and enhances the wildlife that remains on the island, increasing its access to food and medicine. Buildings are made from stone and mud instead of wood, and actually end up being stronger than before. New fuels are discovered for their fires that burn hotter, and cleaner, allowing them to cook their food indoors where they previously couldn’t, staying warm in the cold months. After some time, the Cutters eventually recognize the benefits of the new society, although they always insist that it would have also been okay to cut down the trees and just keep using them.
Again, a completely contrived example. But, in the beginning, how things will end is not known. If I were Nature, I would consider taking out an insurance policy. No matter how convincing an argument is, I would never let every member of my colony follow a leader off of a cliff, even if it seems like there is a safe path down the cliff to the beach below. I might say “10 - 15% of any population should always take the counter-position, and go the opposite way instead.” Thereby ensuring that in the chance that the prevailing argument is just wrong, through some miscalculation or misjudgment, I don’t lose the whole population, but instead, have a large enough surviving remainder to continue my evolutionary journey.
If that is the case with us, no charts, no graphs, no intellectual arguments will sway you. Certainly, in my experience that has seemed to be the case in the past when debating climate change deniers. I’m going to make the wild assumption that you are not personally being paid by the Koch brothers, or Exxon, or the Heartland Institute, just as I am not being paid by George Soros, Richard Branson, or Tesla. You believe in the righteousness of your position, as I do in mine. I’ll just wave at you in the distance, as I head down the side of the cliff on the route we’ve plotted, and you head across the plains, in search of new homes.