Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The dude in the video is saying what I've been saying. 

Using kids to espouse some technical topic is twaddle.

Ha, he's talking about having goals but no plans.  Ha.

Well, we can measure CO2 levels precisely, I'm confident of that.  We can estimate CO2 production by country with decent precision.  So, minimally we could tell if CO2 generation is starting to drop (it isn't, and won't).

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

ANYTHING the US proposes would amount to at most a tenth of a degree C by 2050, at most, if the models are correct.  We can't measure that.

We could tell only that CO2 levels had stabilized, if they did.  (They won't.)

The connection between that KNOWN and changes in global temperature are rather less certain, with a large element of doubt, as noted, the further one goes out.  These models are amazingly complex, I've looked at them, many terms, many coefficients, some of which are with exponents, and the only way to contrive them is to try and ensure they "back predict" what we think has happened to date.

and measurements and record keeping have been decent for maybe the past 200 years???

Ths issue is not about natural variability, which is known and real.  The issue is about how humans may be forcing it into something that otherwise would not be happening, how bad that could be, and what if anything we can do about it.

I think we have decent records of natural variability, things like tree rings and the like.  We know about Malinkovitch cycles.  We think sun spots may play a role as yet not understood, at times, but that one is a bit dicey.  I think we're pretty confident there was a cooling preriod 1550-1850 at least in the northern hemisphere, and a warming period around 1,000 AD.  We know about the various ice ages.

Folks who study this for a living claim the planet is heating up faster than it would "normally", and we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know its levels are going higher.

I'm not so confident in the various models, in part because there are too many of them.  The could be about right though.

The only real time we need to know about is the roughly 10K years under which human civilization flourished.

We're not going to hurt the planet in any appreciable manner. It's seen way worse than us.

The question is whether we destabilize the climate to the extent that we can no longer sustain the agriculture necessary to feed >7.5B people. The question is whether economic and social dislocation due to climate change will spur wars and unrest.

The planet doesn't give a %&#^ about us. We're a bad rash to the Earth, not an existential threat. But we care if it will continue to support our way of life.