I often get into arguments with people not believing in the consequences of climate change, especially when it's about the melting glaciers. People reason that finding ancient objects hints to low ice levels at numerous times in the last millennias.
My reaction is to reason about the implications of melting ice (ex. sea level rise), which I cannot really back up with facts.
Is there another way to argue about this?
Because, you know, the prediction market in nice oceanfront properties beloved by the coastal elites hasn't collapsed, even tough their tongues say they believe.
I don't trust that website. I know for a fact that their #4 issue is a bust. I tracked down the 'consensus' paper that had 97% of a few dozen climate scientists say that humans are having an impact. I don't believe in CAGW because of the math, and I agree with those 97% scientists. The rest of the papers that reference the 97% consensus fail to qualify it that the consensus was about any impact at all however little. I think CO2 having a logarithmic warming effect should frankly be the end of the argument.
