...
Some of the world’s most brilliant minds are skeptical of the belief that human’s and CO2 are the primary driver behind climate change. Are they science deniers? Flat earthers?
How many more climate scientists are skeptics, but are not speaking out for fear of the mob outrage, and for fear of having their lives turned upside down like the group listed above?
What is truly amazing to me in this thread poll is that only 5% of the respondents were "not sure". The degree of brainwashing the society at large to believe whatever is pushed on it is absolutely scary in the age of social media. Those climate scientists cannot predict tomorrow's weather reliably, yet they can say with 100% certainty that mankind is the primary contributor to current climate change?
Estimated 4.5 billion years of Earth existence, several known catastrophic climate events with no humans present at all; yet, it's absolutely certain the humans have been killing it over the past 100 years or so. This fact alone should cool some of the hotheads and prompt them to look for more possible explanations and ways to deal with mitigating the climate change effects; but no, it's much easier to pick one and just go with it. Make some money along the way too, of course (big money, btw).
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Can anyone predict something on a micro scale as well as they can on a macro scale? And you do know that climate scientists are different than the people you watch on the evening news, right? It's a different skill set because weather and climate, while linked, are not the same thing.
Quote:
Estimated 4.5 billion years of Earth existence, several known catastrophic climate events with no humans present at all; yet, it's absolutely certain the humans have been killing it over the past 100 years or so. This fact alone should cool some of the hotheads and prompt them to look for more possible explanations and ways to deal with mitigating the climate change effects; but no, it's much easier to pick one and just go with it.
Do you think that other causes have not been investigated? We've been talking about this for decades and the science is solid. If you have any real evidence to the contrary feel free to share it.
Quote:
Make some money along the way too, of course (big money, btw).
Are you saying you don't believe in climate change because people are making money off of trying to solve it? Is there not orders of magnitudes more money being made on fossil fuels and other causes of climate change? Why do you believe them?
..
Are you saying you don't believe in climate change ...
Where did I say that?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
What I believe is completely irrelevant. I was amazed that only 5% of the respondents responded unsure about a subject so complicated and controversial.
Some of the best scientists in the history have been famously wrong over and over and over again making predictions. Blind belief in anything is bad, it's no different than religion. Skepticism is what moves the scientific progress forward.
P.S. I hate the "climate denier" label. What does it even mean, ffs?!
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Last edited by CaptainYooh; 04-14-2019 at 05:00 PM.
What I believe is completely irrelevant. I was amazed that only 5% of the respondents responded unsure about a subject so complicated and controversial.
Some of the best scientists in the history have been famously wrong over and over and over again making predictions. Blind belief in anything is bad, it's no different than religion. Skepticism is what moves the scientific progress forward.
P.S. I hate the "climate denier" label. What does it even mean, ffs?!
They become wrong because a better theory comes along and explains things that the current theories can't explain. They don't just be "skeptical" of the science.
The current mechanism is the greenhouse gas effect that is causing the clearly observed and factual overall warming. Do you have a better theory that explains what we're seeing?
The scientific method is that we test multiple theories over and over again and put it up against what we observe in reality. It isn't just "I'm skeptical of your results".
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
My Dad now believes climate change is the biggest hoax in human history. When I asked him why he doesn't trust NASA, the guys that put people on the moon, he says something doesn't seem right and he would rather trust a couple sceptic scientists he follows on Twitter. I'm not really sure how you are supposed to convince someone with those views to do something about global warming.
Also, I am sick of every single politician's response to global warming. Those are the right are in complete denial, those in the centre are either gutless or are using this as an opportunity to pork barrel and provide money for business mates, and those on the left are pretty much watermelons using this as an opportunity for wealth distribution.
I just want one politician to come out and say global warming is a problem and I am going to introduce some modest policies that over the period of a few decades will eventually lead to a carbon neutral economy.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following User Says Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
What I believe is completely irrelevant. I was amazed that only 5% of the respondents responded unsure about a subject so complicated and controversial.
I think you're assuming anyone who didn't choose "unsure" is 100% certain in their choice. I'm certainly not, but the evidence of human influence in climate change is pretty undeniable to me.
Quote:
Some of the best scientists in the history have been famously wrong over and over and over again making predictions. Blind belief in anything is bad, it's no different than religion. Skepticism is what moves the scientific progress forward.
Be sceptical, but bring facts. Like I said if you have any solid evidence against the anthropogenic climate theory bring it.
Quote:
P.S. I hate the "climate denier" label. What does it even mean, ffs?!
Do you have a better term? I get that it's used as a pejorative so I'm open to suggestion.
The Following User Says Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
What I believe is completely irrelevant. I was amazed that only 5% of the respondents responded unsure about a subject so complicated and controversial.
Some of the best scientists in the history have been famously wrong over and over and over again making predictions. Blind belief in anything is bad, it's no different than religion. Skepticism is what moves the scientific progress forward.
P.S. I hate the "climate denier" label. What does it even mean, ffs?!
Throughout modern history, scientists have been correct a hell of a lot more often than they've been wrong. It's time to get a move on with taking bold action on climate change, and stop clinging to this idea that "maybe they're wrong". Even if they are somehow wrong, what harm will it do to stop spewing mass amounts of toxic fumes into the atmosphere, and instead get our energy from clean sources?
Right and wrong are also poor terms to describe the state of science over time, since they are absolute terms, when the correctness is usually fuzzier.
And in order for a new theory to be "right" and the old one to be "wrong", the new theory has to be able to explain ALL the phenomenon that the old one did.
Newton wasn't right, but he was right enough that we can still use Newton to explore the solar system. Darwin wasn't "right", but new theories account for all Darwin's observations. New theories usually subsume old ones rather than discarding old ones completely for a completely different basic understanding; especially these days with far more data and research.
^ good points. The current understanding of antropogenic climate change is the best explanation available to humanity thus far. Even if it isn't perfect, it's far better, more robust, and more scientifically sound than any other explanation available. That, in itself, should be all the justification we need to get a move on with moving toward renewables and phasing out fossil fuel use.
I have a grudging respect for anyone who just owned it and voted for hoax. More concerning is the 25% ‘not made made’ folks skirting by on a non answer. If you believe that climate change is happening (ie. there is an increase in global temperature in the troposphere from pre-industrial levels) but largely not anthropogenic, please answer the following:
- Do you agree that climate change is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the troposphere resulting in the greenhouse effect? If no, then what are the other natural forces causing climate change?
- If yes, do you agree that along with the increase in temperature there is also a dramatic increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the troposphere from pre-industrial levels? If no, you probably should have chosen hoax since this is easily measurable and there is a ton of data supporting this.
- If yes, do you also agree that levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide have for 800,000 years correlated almost perfectly with temperature changes in the atmosphere? If no, again hoax might have been a better answer.
- If yes, is the increase in greenhouse gases in the troposphere from pre-industrial levels caused by anthropogenic emissions from burning fossil fuels along with other industrial activities like agriculture and landfills? If no, what natural forces then are causing the dramatic increase in the levels of greenhouse gases and thus global warming?
- If yes, where is the space left for climate change being ‘not man made’?
Of course ‘hoax’ is absurd on its face, akin to denial of evolution or anti-vax. The ‘not man made’ folks however at least acknowledge a real phenomenon but never seem to offer any alternatives to explain the mountains of available evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
Science works on skepticism but real skeptics ask for evidence, replicate findings, and offer competing theories that include, account for, or explain already available data and accepted theory. Waving away a unified theory and thousands of independent studies worth of evidence or being ‘skeptical’ of organizations like NASA or the IPCC doesn’t make you a real skeptic, it just makes you a conspiracy theorist and hoax would have been a more honest answer to the poll.
16% of Americans are still skeptical that the earth is round.
It should surprise literally nobody that there is a spread of answers here. No matter how significant the evidence of the level of agreement from scientists on any matter, there will always be skeptics. And of these skeptics there are outright deniers. These deniers find a few “reputable” skeptics and cling to it like an ideology.
To CaptainYooh’s point, “how can people be sure?”
Well, the average person can’t be “sure” exactly.
How can we be sure gravity exists?
How can we be sure everything is made of molecules?
How can we be sure the sun gives us both vitamin D, and sometimes cancer?
How can we be sure the earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun?
How can we be sure the colours we see are the same as everybody else (save for colourblindness, of course)?
How can we be sure vaccines don’t cause autism?
Truthfully, we can’t be “sure” of any of these things. But thankfully we have scientists who for hundreds of years have dedicated their lives to testing, re-testing, and re-testing again theories to see if they hold up. And when thousands of scientists get the same results, and when these results are peer-reviewed and verified, we have what most would constitute as “enough” evidence to suggest that these things are true. Science isn’t simply showing that something is true, it’s showing evidence of a theory and having others actively work to poke holes and dismantle that theory. If the theory stands despite that, we trust it.
So you then have to ask yourself why you don’t trust theories that have gone through that process. Whether it’s skepticism or denial, what I find most often if that average people who engage in it are generally looking for “something else” or to feel part of something exclusive. After all, there’s really no difference if an individual thinks gravity doesn’t exist. People might think they’re dumb, but who cares what other people think, because you likely have a community that thinks you’re clever. And if one day gravity turns out not to exist? The feeling to those deniers would be overwhelming, to have “known” something the system didn’t, and to have a little bit of intellectual power in an otherwise listless life. All this ignoring that there are actual scientists whose obligation it is to try and disprove these things, and if they are able to, how would a layman?
So yes, people will deny climate change, or at least the human element of climate change, and they’ll probably do it forever. Even if it becomes accepted to the point of the shape of the earth or the existence of gravity, those people will still exist. Because we can’t be “sure.” But it’s wise to question yourself if you can’t / won’t trust “big science,” because naturally there’s a whole lot else you could just stop trusting for the sake of it.
Like your doctor telling you growth on your skin is cancer caused by the sun, you can deny it, forget about treatment, and keep spending time outside without sunscreen all you want.
Eventually though, you’re just going to die. And it’s hard to feel clever when you’re dead.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Here’s a real-world example: Under the best-case scenario, Vancouver’s sea levels are likely to surge an awful 20 inches. They’ll double under the worst case. That’s pretty unthinkable for the more than 250,000 people already living in homes built 40 inches or less above the ocean.
The reality just doesn’t square with how Canada’s leaders perform for an international audience. At the last World Economic Forum, Mr. Trudeau’s message was that “by thinking big, and working together, we will build a better world.” His government designed one of the world’s most ambitious carbon prices. At the Paris climate talks in 2015, he assured delegates, “We’re here to help.”
Mr. Trudeau’s inspired words abroad often garner eye rolls at home. He promised to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but his government still spends billions propping up the oil and gas industry. It also allocated 4.5 billion Canadian dollars ($3.41 billion U.S.) to nationalize a beleaguered oil pipeline from the company Kinder Morgan last year, while the country is expected to fall well short of its 2030 climate targets.
That said, these policies look like progress compared to what the gas-pumping Conservatives have planned. Most of their proposals drive Canada ever closer to the worst possible scenario in the climate report.
Those climate scientists cannot predict tomorrow's weather reliably, yet they can say with 100% certainty that mankind is the primary contributor to current climate change?
Climate /= weather.
WHAT'S THAT?
Climate /= weather!
ONE MORE TIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!
CLIMATE /= WEATHER!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I think you're assuming anyone who didn't choose "unsure" is 100% certain in their choice. I'm certainly not, but the evidence of human influence in climate change is pretty undeniable to me.
Be sceptical, but bring facts. Like I said if you have any solid evidence against the anthropogenic climate theory bring it.
Do you have a better term? I get that it's used as a pejorative so I'm open to suggestion.
I am 100% certain that humans are the primary contributors to our current climate change predicament.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
Climate change is like a vehicle with an automatic transmission. It moves forward on its own, but humans are the ones putting the pedal to the metal. And we may be too late to apply the brakes.
