Do we want a referendum on Net-zero?

Yes the warming is effectively indisputable, with no proven climate models then everything else is at most probable and sometimes just possible.

But why take the risk?

Only seems that way to you. There's a proven correlation (which to be clear is NOT the same as proven causation) between rising CO2 levels and rising world temperature. You seem to wish to deny this based on a very short term variation and there are loads of reasons for short term variations (EG sun spot cycle)

OK Red, I have watched this blogger's video and come to the conclusion that he is using the same tricks he accuses others of using. If you go back to start your examination of rising temperatures at the time of the industrial revolution it is clear that the trend has been for a steadily rising temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans. Same with sea ice, ups and downs in annual sea ice has been a perfectly normal occurrence year on year due to a variety of factors but the overall trend if you go back further is for a steady decline. I'll admit that I only got halfway through but that was enough to convince me of the old adage - 
If you torture statistics enough you can get them to say anything you want them to.
Now I'm prepared to admit that both ''sides'' employ these strategies and also the tactic of omission but it is nowhere near enough to convince me that climate change is a deliberate hoax. I didn't make it to the end but I'm guessing he didn't mention receding glaciers where the evidence is overwhelming.
This blogger is clearly a statistician and not a climatologist and his dreary, slow, monotone presentation makes it hard to listen to but he does prove another old adage that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Not impressed I'm afraid Red.
Also, mathematicians are nerds. I think we should take his dinner money and pull his pants down. 

There is NO proven correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures in the Earth's system. No attempt to create this has worked because the Earth is a "stabilised" system. If you try to warm it up by releasing CO2 the released CO2 also causes cooling because of plant photosynthesis etc. So it doesn't work. 

As you say correlation doesn't indicate causation. So it's worth bearing in mind that warming of the oceans causes the release of CO2 (which is dissolved in the ocean) and we know that ocean currents (like El Nino) have caused significant warming of the surface of the ocean - but we don't know what causes El Nino. So you would expect this to cause warming. But that's not warming caused by CO2. It is possible to differentiate CO2 from the oceans from CO2 that comes from human activities (by examining which carbon isotopes are present) but the graphs never seem to be corrected for this. I wonder why.

The other relevant point is that the data that people like the IPCC use to show their nice little graphs (that demonstrate what they want to prove) is "manipulated". Of course manipulation is not necessarily wrong. These bodies get their data from a wide variety of sources - and over a very long timescale. For example the temperature of the sea used to be measured by dropping a bucket in the ocean and sticking a thermometer in it (in the early 20th century). Nowadays it's often measured by satellites or by buoys. All of these methods return different values of course - and when you're actually looking for very small changes in temperature (the average global temperature has changed by 1.1C since 1850) it leads to a lot of problems. Put simply you tend to get a very unimpressive graph with a scattering of dots all over the place.

So what they do is "filter" the data (often using Kalman filtering). What this does is try to remove the "wrong" data. This is a perfectly respectable process when you have a good idea of what the graph should look like - i.e. when you already have proven equations to reflect what the relationship between the two plotted variables should be. So you feed the equations into the filter and it works out which measurements don't fit the equation. So when you feed into the filter program the equation that says that temperature is proportional to CO2 concentration the manipulated graph comes out showing exactly that. Obviously.   

This is how they removed the so-called "hiatus" in warming that didn't fit their theory. The problem was that some scientists noticed that the data that was deleted was actually their most accurate data (from buoys). Very embarrassing. In fact two leading scientists resigned over the debacle and one said that this "wasn't science - it was crap". I forget his name.

But the main problem with your attitude that we might as well reduce CO2 - even if we can't prove it's the main culprit - just in case, is that while we're concentrating ALL our efforts on CO2 we're ignoring the real problems - like building all over the planet and destroying the Earth's stabilisers. And we're doing this to feed and house a rapidly growing population which shows no sign of slowing down. But no politician would DARE mention population control. 

Yes I know exactly what I'm talking about. But you don't. It's obviously too complicated for you to understand. 

There are correlations between many things but it doesn't mean causation. Sometimes the correlation is completely by chance and is temporary. Sometimes the correlation is because the two factors are related to a "cofactor" - but no causal link. Sometimes, as in this case, each factor can be causative depending on the conditions. I've studied science for many years.

And yes I am saying that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 in the last 200 years. And if you go back even further you still won't find one. I suggest you broaden your "research" beyond googling stuff that echoes your own ignorance because you obviously have no knowledge of this subject.  

Red, the question always ends upback at the same point. The experts in the field are telling us that mad made climate change is a thing and that the impact of doing nothing will be at best very significant at worst catastrophic for the world and our grandchildren. There is overwhelming consensus amongst the experts that this is the case.  So we have a choice of listening to the experts incurring a relatively small impact on our living standards now to mitigate or avoid the damage later if the experts are correct or take a gamble that politicians (almost always right wing libertarians know better than scientists and ignore them. If we take the gamble those politicians are right, if they are we have a slightly better living standard now if they are wrong we fuck the planet for our grandkids at best, kill them at worst.   No sane person would take that gamble on merit but some wish to to further political agenda. 

FFS Steppenwolf make up your bleeding mind.   I said there was correlation but not causation and in your charmless style you objected.  Now you repeat my correlation isn't causation point as if you thought it all up yourself.  And then you deny the correlation

Maybe you need a lie down in a darkened room before you look at this




Or even from skepticalscience  this





Sure looks like correlation but then I know what the words means.