Disclaimer: the style in which I write this reply is highly likely to be considered highly antagonistic, provocative, and non-constructive. Indeed, it may very well be this in many ways. But please consider the possibility that the actual underlying intent is other than what you might presume it to be...that there may be a method to my madness.

> I do not harbor this same suspicion, however, I'm determined to learn whatever is necessary to understand it.

Let's find out.

> Not because I can argue a point to completion for someone who doesn't share epistemological solidarity with me...

I doubt we differ much in actual epistemological beliefs, but rather my epistemological beliefs are much more pedantically stringent than yours, and that my stance on climate change is much less ~identity-related (for lack of a better term) than yours. But, I'm very pleased that you introduced epistemology into the discussion, as I believe it is one of the more important issues in play.

> ...but because it might allow me to aid in whatever needs posterity has in solving the problems we are creating today.

Here we are in strong agreement.

> In that interest, I will eventually complete the following course:

> https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming

Here is where our respective analyses of the problem diverge, although I didn't happen to touch too terribly strongly on this aspect of my beliefs in the comment to which you are replying, but I will do so now (and, see my other comments in this thread).

Essentially, my belief is that "the" problem of climate change is not one of science, but one of psychology. It seems to me that the manner in which the issue is being framed/discussed, is roughly:

1. figure out the "the science"

2. figure out the technical solutions

3. implementation

This seems generally logical/reasonable to me, and is typically an effective approach in the field of engineering - well, if you don't look too closely that is. I believe that 1 and 2 are complete (or more accurately, complete enough), and we should now as a society be moving on to step 3. But this is where the wheels are coming off the wagon, is it not?

Implementation, in the real world, has the following dependencies: [Public Consensus] --> [Politics] --> [Human Psychology] (note: I wrote this in a different order in a prior comment, but I think this order is more correct). Public Consensus is (largely) achieved via Politics, and Politics requires interacting with and persuading people - as they are, not as they "should" be (Human Psychology).

So let's look at some examples of human psychology in action....

> I feel as if you should do so as well, as it's the only way to understand the scientific position, if [all you are going to do otherwise] is [attack them with conspiracy theory]

> Further, you want to disabuse others of speculation, but [you haven't taken the work to do so yourself].

> Now, you could go ahead and do all the work above [for every scientific point of view that you want to challenge].

Here I will urge you to consider this in the most open-minded, least self-defensive manner possible. Please try to be acutely aware of System-1 vs System-2 thinking [0], and do your best to disable System-1. In order to assist you in that endeavor, I will openly admit that my line of reasoning has the appearance of arguing in bad faith, gas lighting, non-constructive pedantry, you name it. My behavior is clearly suspicious.

1. Remember this discussion is taking place within a context of epistemic humility (what we know is true, as opposed to what we "reasonably think" is true, but do not actually know for sure)

2. Note that I have added [brackets] to several phrases

So here is my challenge to you: re-read what I actually wrote, and answer the question:

From where did the ideas come from, that:

a) I am going to act in a particular manner

b) my beliefs (or, rhetorical techniques) are (or will be) based on conspiracy theories

c) I accuse others of speculation, but imply I am not doing the same

d) what I am doing is "challenging scientific points of view"

Is it possible that your mind has formed a highly detailed internal model of who I am and what I'm all about, based not entirely on factual observations, but rather based on subconscious heuristic judgements? I hope you can realize and acknowledge this, because it is the essence of my entire theory. And to assist you in this endeavor, I will explicitly note that this behavior isn't "stupid" or unusual - this behavior exists, and is so highly tuned that it takes place entirely without our conscious knowledge, because it evolved this way. It is an extremely useful capability of the human mind, but while it delivers tremendous advantages under most conditions, it also brings dangerous disadvantages in certain situations, such as when 100% pure, disciplined, rational thinking and analysis is required to solve a problem (say, analyzing and predicting human behavior with respect to a specific complicated situation).

So, it "shouldn't" be too hard to recognize that this is true in an individual scenario such as this conversation. But consider this: what if the entire public discussion on climate change is failing due to a mass manifestation of this well-known human behavior (combined with bad actors in politics and industry, general human stupidity, etc). What if this whole thing is little more than one big misunderstanding?

I think this is an extremely interesting and novel way of looking at this problem. The issue is, how might one get a feel for how true this is? I have a few ideas (but not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, I could use some help):

- observe the nature of discussions/arguments on climate change - We very much like to think we are discussing "pure facts" (after all, to our mind is appears in crystal clear resolution that this is what we're doing, doesn't it!), but is this really the case? For each statement in a discussion, does it have any epistemic flaws? (And, if you present these flaws to the author of the comment, observe the response - not only of the author, but also of moderators of the platform you are on!)

- how many of the "facts" we use aren't actually facts, but rather factoids (ie: "97% of scientists agree....")

- do humans sometimes literally say things that they don't literally actually believe (something you can determine by engaging in controlled, deep collaborative discussions)

- do humans sometimes behave in obviously illogical, counter-productive ways, "cutting off their nose to spite their face", "scorching the earth", voting "against their interests" (that one could actually go in the factoid category as well)

So what's the point of this long, schizophrenic rant? My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology. And, I will provocatively (but speculatively) assert that a recurring refusal to even acknowledge this as a valid possibility, is in fact evidence that supports the very theory. My suspicion on why this behavior exists, is that on ~identity-related issues, it is simply human nature to blame one's opponent while absolving oneself of all guilt [1].

I am worried that once again, my effort at articulating this theory will be completely not understood, or completely ignored (again, behavior that I would assert is suggestive of the very theory), as if my comment didn't even exist. But hey, as I provocatively challenged you at the very start when you claimed you were "determined to understand": "Let's find out.". So, let's, shall we?

Nonetheless, I personally believe that this is actually the problem, so I will continue to beat this dead horse in hopes that eventually someone will actually consider the idea. Under the circumstances, this seems like the right thing to do, although I highly doubt my approach is optimal.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Summar...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error