What's your stance on Climate Change?

[Tradewind]

To me that means you believe it. You take it as true, and you act/think upon that basis.

it's just the word...believe/belief is having a conviction and supporting something that something is truthful or exists. Leaves the possibility that the opposite might also be true that it's unknowable.

It's just not...a very scientific word heh. Since it's so personal. But that said I am hard pressed to think of a better word...Support? Acknowledge? fuck knows...

[TZK203]

Aren't cold and hot subjective? Besides that, there's nothing wrong or contradictory with saying you believe ice is cold and that you know it's cold. In fact you could say you believe that ice is cold because you've experienced it directly and have sensory knowledge. It might sound a bit awkward to say it.

There is no such thing as "cold" in science. It's just lack of heat.

Cold and hot are just ways to describe the temperatures of objects in comparison to our own bodies. I mean, if you were freezing to death, even something a couple of degrees warmer than you might feel hot.

[Kraenen]

You're implying reality is fixed, nice misunderstanding.

It's not reality, it's our explanations of reality that we're talking about. People seem to be thinking they know reality because they accept the best and most accurate scientific theories, when knowing reality is something a bit more tenuous.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Until new science proves old science wrong and you've been accepting flawed reality all this time.

...whoa.

Not remotely the same, science has proven climate change and global warming based on unshakable evidence thus far, sure there is data that can be interpreted the other way but that does not prove that Global Warming is the result of any specific element more than human. If people hold science up to be being about belief and faith then yes it would be accepting a flawed reality. If in the face of NEW actual evidence someone chooses to believe then that old theory.


Global warming is established not because people believe it, but because there is evidence for it thus a fact, and when something comes along with evidence that can prove otherwise then we adapt.

[Zvinny]

The cool thing about science is, it does things whether you believe in it or not!

[Deleted]

It's not reality, it's our explanations of reality that we're talking about. People seem to be thinking they know reality because they accept the best and most accurate scientific theories, when knowing reality is something a bit more tenuous.

Explanations of reality is reality. That's all reality is, a subjective construction of stimuli as provided by the body an instruments comprehensible to said body.

[Vyxn]

I believe in climate change like I know the climate has changed back and forth sense the beginning of time
question is. is this time caused by man and if so by how much? there isn't enough data provided for my taste to prove as much and looking at 50 years of accurate data to prove it one way or the other would be the same as trying to figure out the pattern of a picture the size of 6 football fields by only looking at a postage stamp size sample of it

and please don't post any charts from Skeptical Science web site the Michael Man hockey stick chart has been debunked and so has the 97% consensus claim

[endersblade]

Do I believe in scientific data? Yes.

People throw conspiracies around all the time, and they can do it all they want. There is very clear evidence that it's happening, what more do you want? You want proof in order to believe in something, then proof you shall have.

As far as us being involved? It doesn't take a genius to understand that all the fossil fuels we burn will have a negative impact on the world we live on. Is our climate changing directly BECAUSE of us? No, it's doing so naturally. We're just helping it happen faster.

[Deleted]

I believe in climate change like I know the climate has changed back and forth sense the beginning of time
question is. is this time caused by man and if so by how much? there isn't enough data provided for my taste to prove as much and looking at 50 years of accurate data to prove it one way or the other.
it would be the same as trying to figure out the pattern of a picture the size of 6 football fields by only looking at a postage stamp size sample of it

I bet you have access to all the latest climatology papers to sate your "taste" for evidence.

[Tradewind]

I believe in climate change like I know the climate has changed back and forth sense the beginning of time
question is. is this time caused by man and if so by how much? there isn't enough data provided for my taste to prove as much and looking at 50 years of accurate data to prove it would be the same as trying to figure out the pattern of a picture the size of 6 football fields by only looking at a postage stamp size sample of it

I love this...the "climate wobble" type approach...

"oh it happens naturally every 25,000 years"...pretty sure it doesn't happen naturally in a compressed timeframe of 50 though. Like the tilt of our orbit or whatever just magically went lopsided and now we're in it...the mental gymnastics needed to "believe" that shit is amazing.

[Faroth]

You're implying reality is fixed, nice misunderstanding.

I thought my entire suggestion was that what we currently perceive as reality can be altered by new discoveries of science would indicate reality, or our perception of it anyway, is not fixed, but ever changing.

And then I was just tossing in a thinly veiled Keanu Reeves joke.

But poor decision, I guess. Politically charged issue, no room for light heartedness there. I should have known better.

[Kraenen]

Explanations of reality is reality. That's all reality is, a subjective construction of stimuli as provided by the body an instruments comprehensible to said body.

The first sentence doesn't even make sense. If you follow it through, it becomes an endless loop. But this is all getting way too metaphysical for me.

[Deleted]

The first sentence doesn't even make sense. If you follow it through, it becomes an endless loop. But this is all getting way too metaphysical for me.

That's the point, reality is not a "real" thing as we think of "real".

I can make you think reality is different simply through optical illusions, more complexly by manipulating the electrical stimuli which your body interprets.

[zealo]

Aren't cold and hot subjective? Besides that, there's nothing wrong or contradictory with saying you believe ice is cold and that you know it's cold. In fact you could say you believe that ice is cold because you've experienced it directly and have sensory knowledge. It might sound a bit awkward to say it.

Hot and cold is not subjective within science, within physics its all about state of energy and movement. It cannot get any lower than zero kelvin on one end and this is because simplified the building blocks of atoms simply stop moving at those levels. It goes in the other direction when talking about heat, its something measurable and not subjective.

[Xar226]

Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic because I'm hopped up on tylenol and caffeine.

You're not. It's a disgrace that people chalk it up to "belief."

Now that said, it doesn't mean that there is no chance that our current understanding is wrong, it's happened lots of times in history. But it's not about "belief," it's about right and wrong and I'm going to go with the guys who study it for a living that it is a fact.

[Thes]

There's not much room for beliefs since climate change would happen in cycles even without our interference...

[Herecius]

It's not reality, it's our explanations of reality that we're talking about. People seem to be thinking they know reality because they accept the best and most accurate scientific theories, when knowing reality is something a bit more tenuous.

There is no reason to make the illogical leap from 'as science progresses, our understanding of the world changes' to 'believe nothing science says because it might be false.'

Except that that's what so many climate change denier are exactly doing. 'So the science says climate change is real, big deal! Science said the Earth was flat once, too!' It isn't really a valid argument.

[Deleted]

I thought my entire suggestion was that what we currently perceive as reality can be altered by new discoveries of science would indicate reality, or our perception of it anyway, is not fixed, but ever changing.

And then I was just tossing in a thinly veiled Keanu Reeves joke.

But poor decision, I guess. Politically charged issue, no room for light heartedness there. I should have known better.

I was under the assumption you were implying that you assumed people think of reality as being fixed, which nobody with a mild education does

Assumptions are a lazy way to argue, apologies. Long day and all that!

[Kraenen]

Hot and cold is not subjective within science, within physics its all about state of energy and movement. It cannot get any lower than zero kelvin one end and this is because simplified the building blocks of atoms simply stop moving at those levels. It goes in the other direction when talking about heat, its something measurable and not subjective.

We were talking about the guy himself though, not through science. He himself knew that fire is hot, so I went with that.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no reason to make the illogical leap from 'as science progresses, our understanding of the world changes' to 'believe nothing science says because it might be false.'

Except that that's what so many climate change denier are exactly doing. 'So the science says climate change is real, big deal! Science said the Earth was flat once, too!' It isn't really a valid argument.

I didn't make that argument, (idk why you quoted me)

[Herecius]

There's not much room for beliefs since climate change would happen in cycles even without our interference...

The question is more about human driven climate change, and whether or not we have accelerated or warped (especially in a negative way) the natural cycle of climate change in our world.

Which we definitely have, our planet's overall climate has undergone wild changes since the industrial revolution, and it's not a coincidence. What we can do about it though, and perhaps more importantly, what governments and countries are even willing to do about it, is the real question I think...

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't make that argument, (idk why you quoted me)

Meant to quote Faroth, sorry there.