Why are Republicans so Anti-Climate Change?

[mickybrighteyes]

After visiting one of teh places they've been checking atmospheric CO2 levels I can say one thing... I'd say whatever they want me to if I cuold live near that place.

[spinner981]

It isn't "zealotry". I'm giving you all the evidence you could ever want.

I just have absolutely no patience for people who think their refusal to learn about a topic is somehow equivalent to actual knowledge. And that's where you're at. You've been shown where the evidence you want is. You won't even look. It's the Internet equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and screaming that you can't hear anything. It's childish, and expecting me to be polite after you've started out by being dismissive and condescending is pretty damn galling.


But by all means; keep insisting that there's too much evidence for you to believe that there's any evidence. Maybe someday you'll convince someone that's an argument that isn't ridiculous. It just won't be me.

If you want simple answers, start with the Summary for Policymakers. If you want more information, the rest of the report is right there, separated out into convenient chapters. I can't force you to read it, but refusing to do so really isn't making you seem reasonable.

Ya ok, well God is real. I can prove it. Here is all the evidence you could ever want: https://www.google.com/

Or if you want to get REALLY specific, here: https://answersingenesis.org/

Now go find the evidence and don't come back until you agree with me.

There is a difference between 'looking' and scouring multiple huge PDFs looking for something that you think is evidence that I don't even know the nature of.

[Thepersona]

Ask wikileaks and their emails that expose it being a huge farce, with scientists being paid well to agree and demonized if they disagree.

source? because i can say that Exxon mobil funded deniers since the 70s and there's proof about that

[spinner981]

That's the summary, not the science, so we're clear. You refused to read the science.

I read part C, which is what you said to read. Because what I posted was what I concluded after reading this:

"The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m
−2
(see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased
more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF best estimate for 2011 is 43% higher than
that reported in AR4 for the year 2005. This is caused by a combination of continued growth in most greenhouse gas
concentrations and improved estimates of RF by aerosols indicating a weaker net cooling effect (negative RF). {8.5}"

There is plenty of evidence but you refuse to read it. You want it dumbed down in a single paragraph on a gaming website and that's now how science works. You need to educate yourself, we can't convince you to not be ignorant. We can't hold your hand through this like you probably had throughout high school.

I don't care for it to be dumbed down into a single paragraph, just the kindness of someone to specify where it is exactly, instead of just pointing in its general vague direction.

[Invrlose]

You asked for the scientific evidence. Either you're actually interested, in which case, you've got the information, and it's up to you to read it. Or you're engaging in willful ignorance and pretending that your refusal to engage honestly is somehow an argument.



Well, you would be a liar, if you said that. Since that report does contain the evidence.

You just won't bother to read any of it, because, again, willful ignorance and refusal to engage in honest discussion.



97% of climate scientists. There really isn't any point to asking scientists in different fields; it would be like asking biologists about the details of quantum mechanics.

And you refusing to believe facts really isn't my problem. Again; willful ignorance isn't an argument.



What you're literally saying here is that I haven't provided any evidence, other than the mountain of evidence that's so big you won't bother looking at it.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you're not engaging honestly. You have absolutely no interest in educating yourself or learning anything.



It isn't "zealotry". I'm giving you all the evidence you could ever want.

I just have absolutely no patience for people who think their refusal to learn about a topic is somehow equivalent to actual knowledge. And that's where you're at. You've been shown where the evidence you want is. You won't even look. It's the Internet equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and screaming that you can't hear anything. It's childish, and expecting me to be polite after you've started out by being dismissive and condescending is pretty damn galling.


But by all means; keep insisting that there's too much evidence for you to believe that there's any evidence. Maybe someday you'll convince someone that's an argument that isn't ridiculous. It just won't be me.

If you want simple answers, start with the Summary for Policymakers. If you want more information, the rest of the report is right there, separated out into convenient chapters. I can't force you to read it, but refusing to do so really isn't making you seem reasonable.

Please stop arguing for the side of science because you do an extremely poor job of it. You're more damaging to science than anything really.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask wikileaks and their emails that expose it being a huge farce, with scientists being paid well to agree and demonized if they disagree.

You don't know what you are talking about lmao. The reason I didn't go in to research like a lot of these scientists you're talking about is because there's no fucking money in it. Sincerely, a PharmD.

[callipygoustp]

Ask wikileaks and their emails that expose it being a huge farce, with scientists being paid well to agree and demonized if they disagree.

Maybe I'm just tired after a long week but I can't find any specifics on this claim. Do you have any links I could check out? I don't want to flat out disbelieve this, but its sounding like "fake news" to me. Hook me up with some info!

[Super Kami Dende]

I'd say many aren't. I don't doubt there are a lot of climate deniers on the Republican side, but all the conservatives I know aged between 20-50 know of Climate science as a true thing.

I've had far more liberal friends deny Climate change and disregard legitimate science for the likes of Flat Earth Theories and shit.

[Invrlose]

Maybe I'm just tired after a long week but I can't find any specifics on this claim. Do you have any links I could check out? I don't want to flat out disbelieve this, but its sounding like "fake news" to me. Hook me up with some info!

It's fake news just like "Iraq has WMD's" and "Russia hacked the election"

[callipygoustp]

I'd say many aren't. I don't doubt there are a lot of climate deniers on the Republican side, but all the conservatives I know aged between 20-50 know of Climate science as a true thing.

I've had far more liberal friends deny Climate change and disregard legitimate science for the likes of Flat Earth Theories and shit.

Wow! That contradicts everything I see in real life and the vast majority of what I see online. Where do you live that this is the case?

[Endus]

When somebody tells me evolution is proven, I ask for the evidence, and they just tell me to google it, I am under no obligation to do so. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to educate myself. It means that I want specific information, not just a massive chunk of reading where I am apparently supposed to discover the evidence myself and if I don't then it somehow must be my fault. The same applies here. If you want to claim it is so obvious, then give me the information instead of just relying on links with headlines that you agree with.

No, what you're doing is refusing to educate yourself. You refuse to look at the evidence because there's too much of it, and then claim there's "no evidence" because of nothing but your refusal to look at it.

It's like thinking the scary man with the gun vanishes if you close your eyes real tight. That's the level you're playing at, here.

Ya ok, well God is real. I can prove it. Here is all the evidence you could ever want: https://www.google.com/

Or if you want to get REALLY specific, here: https://answersingenesis.org/

Now go find the evidence and don't come back until you agree with me.

There is a difference between 'looking' and scouring multiple huge PDFs looking for something that you think is evidence that I don't even know the nature of.

You asked for the science behind climate change.

You can either get that whole document, or you can ask me a specific, small-scale question. If you want to know the physical science basis behind it, the answer is "all 1500+ pages of the IPCC report". This isn't a simple issue.

Please stop arguing for the side of science because you do an extremely poor job of it. You're more damaging to science than anything really.

I figure the evidence speaks for itself. That's how science works.

When people act childish and refuse to participate in honest discussion, I'm not "doing harm" by calling them out on it. It's the equivalent of telling Buzz Aldrin you think he faked the moon landing. Aldrin's response to that was absolutely correct. These aren't innocent accusations. Climate change deniers are implicitly stating that all the scientists working in the field are deliberate fraudsters. For those of us working in that and related fields, that's a direct, personal insult. So you'll excuse me if I won't sit there and take it.

[spinner981]

That's what I linked because it wasn't clear what you were after and because you complained that what Endus linked was too long and that there should be a sentence somewhere he knows the location of. You obviously didn't even glance at the report because there's an entire chapter devoted to exactly how they detect and attribute it, but if you want a blurb that thoroughly explains the case for anthropogenic climate change, you're out of luck.

I'm no climate scientist. I don't know all the terminology by heart, and have to look them up and comprehend a lot of it on an individual basis before trying to tackle it as a whole. That said it is very difficult to just give these 30 page articles or PDFs a once through and be able to spot the particular point where the evidence is apparently happening. Forgive me for not wanting to dedicate hours or days or weeks of my life reading and learning the apparent intricacies of advanced climate science just to respond to the claim "97% of scientists agree, therefore it is a fact!" with any skepticism at all without everyone and their brother howling at me for not being a climate scientist myself and demanding that I locate the precise evidence they think exists within articles that they think are credible because they themselves apparently aren't learned enough to even attempt an explanation and so instead they resort to personal attacks as a result of me not being learned enough to be able to pinpoint the explanation within said 30 page PDF.

[Zmaniac17]

For the same reason people are not scared of killing themselves slowly by eating a poor diet and not exercising. A failure of imagination. It's not like a car accident where the cause and effect are in your face. It'll take a hell of a long time to sit and watch 300 trillion tons of ice melt (Greenland). But it would be much more catastrophic than a car accident.

This combined with lots of manufactured controversy and conspiracy to distract the public from real issues. Divide and conquer. Energy as a limited resource keeps everyone who can't afford it down. And it keeps the people on top in power.

[Endus]

I'm no climate scientist. I don't know all the terminology by heart, and have to look them up and comprehend a lot of it on an individual basis before trying to tackle it as a whole. That said it is very difficult to just give these 30 page articles or PDFs a once through and be able to spot the particular point where the evidence is apparently happening.

See? This is the problem.

There isn't one line that has "the evidence". The entire report is the evidence. All of it. There's a huge amount of evidence from thousands of sources involved, on a wide range of particular subjects. So unless you can get very specific about exactly what question you're asking, you can not get a shorter answer, not without leaving out important elements.

Forgive me for not wanting to dedicate hours or days or weeks of my life reading and learning the apparent intricacies of advanced climate science just to respond to the claim "97% of scientists agree, therefore it is a fact!" with any skepticism at all without everyone and their brother howling at me for not being a climate scientist myself and demanding that I locate the precise evidence they think exists within articles that they think are credible because they themselves apparently aren't learned enough to even attempt an explanation and so instead they resort to personal attacks as a result of me not being learned enough to be able to pinpoint the explanation within said 30 page PDF.

If you don't know, then the proper stance is to say "I don't know and therefore have no opinion either way". Instead, you're disputing the conclusions and the research, based on your willful ignorance. That's a deliberately hostile and unjustifiably irrational position.

If you asked me about high-end calculus theory, I'd say "I have no clue, you need a mathematician". I would NOT say "I don't believe calculus works. Point out a single line that explains all calculus to me, or I'll never believe it works." Because that's obviously ridiculous.

And yet, that's what you're doing.

Someone handing me a calculus textbook and saying all my answers could be found in there is a valid response. Me saying "that books really big and I'm not going to read it, I just know calculus is hokum" makes me an willfully dishonest person.

[Invrlose]

No, what you're doing is refusing to educate yourself. You refuse to look at the evidence because there's too much of it, and then claim there's "no evidence" because of nothing but your refusal to look at it.

It's like thinking the scary man with the gun vanishes if you close your eyes real tight. That's the level you're playing at, here.



You asked for the science behind climate change.

You can either get that whole document, or you can ask me a specific, small-scale question. If you want to know the physical science basis behind it, the answer is "all 1500+ pages of the IPCC report". This isn't a simple issue.



I figure the evidence speaks for itself. That's how science works.

When people act childish and refuse to participate in honest discussion, I'm not "doing harm" by calling them out on it. It's the equivalent of telling Buzz Aldrin you think he faked the moon landing. Aldrin's response to that was absolutely correct. These aren't innocent accusations. Climate change deniers are implicitly stating that all the scientists working in the field are deliberate fraudsters. For those of us working in that and related fields, that's a direct, personal insult. So you'll excuse me if I won't sit there and take it.

I never said the method was wrong, I said you do a poor job of it. Your particular brand of argumentation is neither new nor unique, you come off as some wannabe know-it-all but it's obvious to anybody with even the slightest background in science that you really are just parroting arguments that you've read elsewhere.

[Endus]

I never said the method was wrong, I said you do a poor job of it. Your particular brand of argumentation is neither new nor unique, you come off as some wannabe know-it-all but it's obvious to anybody with even the slightest background in science that you really are just parroting arguments that you've read elsewhere.

Do you have an actual point? Because at this point, you're just being personally insulting for no reason, while claiming that I'm the one being a jerk.

[Arthas242]

Because most people on the right have no problem with green energy or taking care of the earth.....

what they don;t like is destroying a economy in 1 day based on shady science that has been shown to edit the data to fit there needs when the planet has been getting cooler *yes more ice in the north is melting, but ocean currents are more of a effect on that, but WAY MORE ice is forming in anartica....but like all good things of the let they ignore anything that doesn't prove what they already believe.....Also this winter is going to be brutal......

also a lot of the MODELS IGNORE THE FUCKING SUN AS A FACTOR AND ONLY LOOK AT CO2, we are fucking arrogant to think we understand how the climate works when we can't even predict normal weather correctly half the time....

aka why i hate "SAVED DAH PLANET CAUSE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS KILLING IT!"

there is no proof, just ideas, and THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING WITHOUT HUMANS for billions of years, USUALLY IN CYCLES. and most of those CYCLES they cna basically say was because of the SUN! and at least once a giant rock throwing dust up.....

i am all for solar and Fusion power research. *fuck wind, to costly and high maintenance for the amount gained*

but not because i believe it is going to save the god damn fucking planet from humans......i would worry more about nukes and giant rocks form space first......

[Deleted]

In a word: money.

[EasyE]

Im sorry but climate change is about as real As Jesus Christ, all I hear is a bunch of people saying "Trust me its real".

[want my Slimjim]

Cause climate change isnt real. Simple as that. Those "scientists" that agree with a few bigoted individuals like Stephen hawking do t actually do scientific research. The ones that do often deny climate change cause of obvious reasons.

[Deleted]

Because it's massively overrated. Climate has always been changing. The dinosaurs had a far warmer climate than it is today and were doing just fine.