I have discovered over the past decade and more that there exists no evidence that can persuade a climate change denier. There is also a set of bogus science like that invoked by RFK Jr to justify vaccine skepticism that the climate skeptic can draw upon.
Rest assured that I am not trying to persuade you or anyone. When I read something that fits on a BRF thread, I post it, it might be useful to someone.
About Hossenfelder’s video - don’t misunderstand it. For example, most people have an explanation of how an airplane wing generates lift. As SciAm explains:
…. accounts of lift exist on two separate levels of abstraction: the technical and the nontechnical. They are complementary rather than contradictory, but they differ in their aims. One exists as a strictly mathematical theory, a realm in which the analysis medium consists of equations, symbols, computer simulations and numbers. There is little, if any, serious disagreement as to what the appropriate equations or their solutions are. The objective of technical mathematical theory is to make accurate predictions and to project results that are useful to aeronautical engineers engaged in the complex business of designing aircraft.
But by themselves, equations are not explanations, and neither are their solutions. There is a second, nontechnical level of analysis that is intended to provide us with a physical, commonsense explanation of lift. The objective of the nontechnical approach is to give us an intuitive understanding of the actual forces and factors that are at work in holding an airplane aloft. This approach exists not on the level of numbers and equations but rather on the level of concepts and principles that are familiar and intelligible to nonspecialists.
It is on this second, nontechnical level where the controversies lie. Two different theories are commonly proposed to explain lift, and advocates on both sides argue their viewpoints in articles, in books and online. The problem is that each of these two nontechnical theories is correct in itself. But neither produces a complete explanation of lift, one that provides a full accounting of all the basic forces, factors and physical conditions governing aerodynamic lift, with no issues left dangling, unexplained or unknown. Does such a theory even exist?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/vide ... n-the-air/
Trying to provide non-technical explanations of the phenomena predicted by the mathematical equations of physics often fails, in that such explanation leaves something out. Intuitive physics models are guides to heuristics that the human mind can handle.
—-
Last, while an entire government of a significant country like the US being in climate change denial is serious, the situation is such that individual opinion doesn’t matter. Those affected by climate change are grappling with it, not worrying that their particular experience is “anecdotal”. And enough hew to the science that the green/renewable energy market is gaining momentum and will eventually displace the fossil fuel economy. So Xi and Modi acknowledge climate change, and the countries have policies accordingly. As does the European Union. As do most countries of note. Climate change deniers are in the pleasant position having the irrelevance of flat earthers. Mostly. In the US, they will be the cause of the US falling behind.
Even in the US, insurers are incorporating climate change modeling, without the government requiring it, because they see their “anecdotal” losses.
