The questions in my mind are:
- Have humans changed the global climate through emissions? How has this been tested given that it appears the global climate has changed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Climate change is something that has naturally happened ever since the world began. Around 150 years ago a scientists discovered the effects CO2 has on the atmosphere. Since then we've learned to test the effects through experiment in closed greenhouse environments so we can accurately predict the heating effect it has on the atmosphere, but there's some things we can't predict.
All in all we know with 100% certainty that humans have an effect on the climate. What we're unsure about is the amount of effect and long term impact. But we're not far off getting it right.
- If the climate is changing, what will the result be? Many people claimed we would run out of food but actually the opposite has happened (global poverty has never been lower), I also understand there have been fewer hurricanes/major storms in most parts of the world.
There's many effects. They range between minor tiny ones and huge effects. Food running out is a complex issue. We're unlikely to completely run out of food. It's more the effect it has on food. For example, greater droubts and increased storms make it difficult for plants and livestock to survive. A prime example of this was the droughts in Queensland that killed many cattle then the floods straight after that killed many more.
The main effect though is temperature rise. It's only a small rise (About 2 degrees in 100 years from now) but with any rise the summers create an exponential rise. Then there's the complexities which result in massive snow storms during winter (this is why it's no longer called global warming. Causes too much confusion)
On hurricanes and major storms, there haven't been less. There has been an increase but only a slight increase. Read this if you want to know more about the current effects and long term effects
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
- Why have scientists consistently been wrong when it comes to forecasting temperature changes as a result of global emissions? Also, why does every forecast seemed to be biased towards warming instead of cooling - does this indicate that scientists are biased if they seem to all forecast incorrectly in one direction only?
Pretty much none of that is accurate, but there's a number of points to address.
Climate models are often wrong. But the question is how wrong they are. Most models have been accurate within an acceptable margain of error but it all depends on your margain of error. The main reason people think that the climate models are all wrong is because a group of scientists published research saying that every climate model has been off by almost 2 degrees. And these scientists actually work for the IPCC (as do thousands of other scientists). But there's a few problems with their research:
- 3 groups of scientists were provided with satellite data. From this each had to extrapolite and calculate temperatures using advanced equations. The first group (the one mentioned above) found that predictions were nearly 2 degrees off. The other two groups (using the same data) found that predictions were accurate
- While the above was based on mathematical calculcations from satellite read microwave radiation, all temperatures taken at ground and sea level in 6,400 sites around the world found that the other two groups were accurate and the first group was way off. That didn't stop every climate denier from saying that the first group was the only one with accurate measurements
- The first group has two leaders. One of the leaders is quoted saying, "Climate change can't be real because God wouldn't let it happen". Side note, the other group leader was elected to head of the EPA by Trump
On Bias:
Bias is impossible to avoid. The best scientists do everything they can to avoid bias (which is why we have triple blind studies) but they still end up letting some bias slip in. The only way to counter this is to include as much analysis as possible and as much research as possible. This is why the IPCC formed in the first place. And yes, the IPCC has climate deniers in there too because they need to have critique. They need to remain as unbiased as possible.
But bias goes a long way. We need to be cautious on both sides. A prime example of this is Michael Mann. Famous for the Mann Hockey Stick which showed the temperature spikes. While this hockey stick graph was in line with every other research on temperatures, Mann refused to reveal his data set. If you won't reveal where you got your data then your data is useless. On the other side we have to look at the research by those flagged as "Climate deniers". Every single scientist that doesn't support man influenced climate change is funded at least in part by fossil fuel companies. That's not an exaggeration either. That's also not a smoking gun. Whether their research supports climate denial because they're funded by fossil fuel companies, or whether they're funded because their research supports the interest of fossil fuel companies, it's just important to note the link there.
There is a lot of money for fossil fuel companies to lose, but there's also a lot of money for renewable companies to gain. So it's important to have complete transparency when it comes to this stuff. And it's important to at least attempt to be as unbiased as possible, even if true unbias is impossible.