What can I do about climate change?

I think people will say they support collective actions right up until those collective actions actually affect their lifestyle. That's why even a lot of democratic policy efforts have been geared toward subsidies instead of reducing use. Much of the populace genuinely is OK with someone else's money being spent on solar, wind, and EV credits. When it means they can't afford to fly for their annual vacation, it's a different story.

None of what you listed has anything to do with my argument. You just wrote a wall of straw man.

> - ...going complete off the deep in the end. As in "How many kids, vacations, cars, etc are created because BBC exists?", a sentence that makes me understand how my dog feels when they tilt their head just so, and look at me with their big, questioning eyes.

So we are agreed. Climate change isn't that big of a deal and the BBC will continue with its business? The world isn't going to end eh?

Don't worry, I used to be a crazed "world is ending" global warming nut too. Hell even tried the lunacy called veganism for a little bit. I grew out of that phase. I'm sure one day you will too.

I don't want to waste more time with a zealot because I know where this leads. Nowhere. So let me just state this.

I believe humans are affecting the climate ( to a small degree ) and affecting the environment ( to a larger degree ). Humans will adapt and life will go on. Not losing any sleep over climate change just like al gore flying comfortable in his private jet. But feel free to run around screaming "the world is ending".

>"Climate science" is metascience in the sense that it builds on and interprets data which has its own set of issues besides the issues with data modeling.

Yes, findings about climate are not reproducible in the straight and narrow sense of the scientific method, but there are methods to reason about these findings. Consider the utility of epidemiology, and how it informs medicine and health policies.

> There are plenty of examples of mistakes, false predictions, cheating with the data etc. that anyone who wants to have an opinion on this should be really really really careful how much we actually can demonstrate vs. how much is speculated. Just taking it on faith that the scientific community is in agreement about a lot of the details is simply misguided.

I take it that there is a broad consensus that climate change is man-made and that carbon emissions are very likely a huge driver of it. Many scientific professional organizations have issued statements about it. Many governments see the need to at least pay lip service to it.

> Kuhns paradigms

No, paradigm shifts help develop new and more accurate theory, but old theories still hold. Newtonian mechanics doesn't become obsolete even if a more accurate quantum picture has been developed. Even the primitive, less precise, yet intuitive Aristotelian notion of motion can be useful in many contexts, e.g. game physics that need to enable an unreal amount of control yet feel psychologically natural.

> in fact, if we did it probably would lead to more death than the consequences of flooding and it certainly will lead to more poor people without any means to deal with the ever-changing climate.

I don't see how the thrust of this statement is consistent with the immediate statement before

> IMO is not discussion whether humans are affecting it as we can't change that and will not change that,

> nature is fundamentally friendly and safe towards us and we are destroying it, my position is that nature is fundamentally hostile and dangerous and that we are using technology to be safer from it

I don't see how any general disposition of nature towards human society has any relevance toward my claim that solutions toward climate change must include an aspect that is not just technological products and services.

> Flying less, eating less meat isn't the solution to the problem, more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship and making people richer so they start caring about their close environment is.

> Flying less, eating less meat isn't the solution to the problem.

I contend that they can be an important part of the solution to the problem. If it becomes sufficiently socially unacceptable, these activities will see a significant decrease. Many citizens already considers many activities taboo and immoral due to the influence of their society; online fraud, adultery, taking more than their fair share of an obvious common good when they don't need it; it is possible to frame excessive air travel or meat consumption as immoral.

> more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship and making people richer so they start caring about their close environment is.

Similarly, I contend that collective agitation is important to enable the means that you cite. "more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship" is enabled by voting for governments interested in funding research. The availability of science is enabled by the collective action of researchers and sponsors advocating for open access. The success and feasibility of entrepreneurship is enabled by voting for governments interested in limiting monopolies and anti-competitive behavior. The collective signaling of consumers that they are ready for alternatives encourage the establishment of businesses to cater to these alternatives, and to cater to them more efficiently. Without this signaling, one is less certain if there is a market for it, and hence such lines of business becomes riskier.

My second last point on societal attitudes argues against your position that an abstract notion of technology is necessary to tackle environmental problems. My last point argues against your position that it is sufficient.