Climate Science vs Deniers.

[spinner981]

So to be clear, I support Science. If it is testable and repeatable I tend to acknowledge it.

So I want to know why do some people not trust science? Do they not see the changes in our world, it's thunder and Lightning here in LA in July, it never rains in July, last time was in 1839. California has been hit hard by the change in climate, and this freaky rain is because of the warn waters off the coast. Californian ocean waters are normally very cold, almost Scottish water cold.

So what's the deal folks. Because it seems obvious to me things are changing and not for the better, and I trust the Scientific answers as to what is happening.

I am pretty sure most people don't deny that climate changes and is changing. The question is the extent to which mankind has played a role in its changing, which is a lot more up in the air and 'debatable' than a mere change in climate.

Concerning the allegations of recent drastic temperature change, we are basing it entirely off of our perception of past temperature changes. Worldview does play into the conclusion we draw from this info.

[PC2]

Not sure at all how this relates to me saying climate change is becoming more of a census..

Is there any proof that climate change was ever not a consensus in the last couple decades? Complaining about a couple of skeptics at Fox news doesn't somehow change what the majority have understood for a long time.

[Stonecloak]

Do you have any proof that climate change was ever not a consensus in the last few decades?

Do you have any proof that it is? I was speaking for my experience in the general public. I know in science it's been a census for decades. Obviously not for all of it, but what is a 100% consensus today. It doesn't exist.

[Banzhe]

I am pretty sure most people don't deny that climate changes and is changing. The question is the extent to which mankind has played a role in its changing, which is a lot more up in the air and 'debatable' than a mere change in climate.

It's up in the air because some people are plain idiots, it's been proven time and time again that the "scientists" skeptics who try to refute the data are not planetary / meteorologist etc etc scientists, in most cases they are physicists or even have phd's totally unrelated to anything regarding climate or planetary systems.
Even their '32000 scientists signed this partition saying they do not acknowledge the data' have been disproved, as it's full of normal people, celebrities etc signatures, but they are still using it as "evidence" to say there's no consensus on the data.., heck, the forerunners on that partition was also on the panel that said 2nd hand smoke wasn't harmful, or the panel that said co2 emissions was good for the climate.

You could also look at "The great email scandal" with leaked mails from scientists where they claimed they talked about falsified data etc, it's was a few lines from a few emails taken out of context, but it's effective manipulating people who do listen to the media without looking into things on their own.
I mean, it wasn't for fun the chief scientists on the MIT board resigned when they manipulated their data to show no warming.

Not that it matters, because the whole political system is bust and bankrupt on this topic, it's been 30+ years talking about it with one scientific analysis after the other.
Look at the timeline for the past major climate changes which weren't man made and how many thousands of years it lasted each time, is it.., 2030 they expect carbon emissions to be almost 600ppm where normal is below 380ppm, and they still think they can change it?

[Garnier Fructis]

I am pretty sure most people don't deny that climate changes and is changing. The question is the extent to which mankind has played a role in its changing, which is a lot more up in the air and 'debatable' than a mere change in climate.

Concerning the allegations of recent drastic temperature change, we are basing it entirely off of our perception of past temperature changes. Worldview does play into the conclusion we draw from this info.

It's not as simple as looking at a plot and deciding that it doesn't look right. Decades of research into the physics, chemistry and mechanics of climate systems has allowed us to construct models which can reconstruct the known records of the past, but they fail to reproduce the very recent past without the addition of a human component.

Unless we're about to posit some new physics that didn't show up until the last couple centuries, then we're basically left with two choices: conclude that we're having an effect (and the underlying principle/driving mechanism is well grounded in known physics/chemistry) in which case we use the models to determine what the effect will be, or question the legitimacy or accuracy of the models.

The second option suggests new physics: there's some climate driver that we don't know about. But if this is the case, then why has it been negligible until the last few centuries? Why do we need it if the simpler explanation is already sufficient?

[spinner981]

It's up in the air because some people are plain idiots, it's been proven time and time again that the "scientists" skeptics who try to refute the data are not planetary / meteorologist etc etc scientists, in most cases they are physicists or even have phd's totally unrelated to anything regarding climate or planetary systems.
Even their '32000 scientists signed this partition saying they do not acknowledge the data' have been disproved, as it's full of normal people, celebrities etc signatures, but they are still using it as "evidence" to say there's no consensus on the data.., heck, the forerunners on that partition was also on the panel that said 2nd hand smoke wasn't harmful, or the panel that said co2 emissions was good for the climate.

You could also look at "The great email scandal" with leaked mails from scientists where they claimed they talked about falsified data etc, it's was a few lines from a few emails taken out of context, but it's effective manipulating people who do listen to the media without looking into things on their own.
I mean, it wasn't for fun the chief scientists on the MIT board resigned when they manipulated their data to show no warming.

Not that it matters, because the whole political system is bust and bankrupt on this topic, it's been 30+ years talking about it with one scientific analysis after the other.
Look at the timeline for the past major climate changes which weren't man made and how many thousands of years it lasted each time, is it.., 2030 they expect carbon emissions to be almost 600ppm where normal is below 380ppm, and they still think they can change it?

And is exactly the problem I am referring to here. The bolded part hinges greatly on worldview, whether you want to call people 'idiots' for disagreeing with you or not.

It's not as simple as looking at a plot and deciding that it doesn't look right. Decades of research into the physics, chemistry and mechanics of climate systems has allowed us to construct models which can reconstruct the known records of the past, but they fail to reproduce the very recent past without the addition of a human component.

Unless we're about to posit some new physics that didn't show up until the last couple centuries, then we're basically left with two choices: conclude that we're having an effect (and the underlying principle/driving mechanism is well grounded in known physics/chemistry) in which case we use the models to determine what the effect will be, or question the legitimacy or accuracy of the models.

The second option suggests new physics: there's some climate driver that we don't know about. But if this is the case, then why has it been negligible until the last few centuries? Why do we need it if the simpler explanation is already sufficient?

I believe there is a third choice, albeit not one that will be accepted as a possibility in most circles, as it would likely be written off as 'automatically wrong' for the expected reasons. As I said, this hinges on worldview. If, and that's an IF, we consider the possibility of a shorter lifespan of the planet to the point where our dating methods are returning for us longer periods of time than is true, and we could then conclude from that that our records of past temperatures actually took place over much shorter periods of time, well... you see where I am going with this I assume.

Once again, this is an alternative possibility that hinges on worldview. Obviously it isn't an option for those who reject the possibility of a largely shorter lifespan for the earth. But for those who do accept a shorter lifespan, this shortening of records (in terms of years) is something that has to happen anyway, that also solves this apparent problem we are presented with.

That's just my two cents. Slander away. I have to go to bed.

[PC2]

Do you have any proof that it is? I was speaking for my experience in the general public. I know in science it's been a census for decades. Obviously not for all of it, but what is a 100% consensus today. It doesn't exist.

Consensus is a general agreement by most, not 100% agreement. These poll results are a good example. Lets just be ultra conservative and say that every vote that is not the top vote is a "denyer". That would still be a consesus at over 80%.

[Ahhdurr]

Climate change is real. How do I know for sure? Because idiots are fighting against the fact for religious and political reasons. It's the same with evolution, GMOs, vaccines, and a host of other crap.

No one argues about Newton's Laws of Motion, or General Relativity, or Maxwell's Equations, or the laws of thermodynamics, or any of the other thousands of things we've learned through science. This kind of shit only happens when money is involved and there are enough ignorant morons to believe the ideology that some other ignorant moron is spouting.

[Banzhe]

And is exactly the problem I am referring to here. The bolded part hinges greatly on worldview, whether you want to call people 'idiots' for disagreeing with you or not.

I believe there is a third choice, albeit not one that will be accepted as a possibility in most circles, as it would likely be written off as 'automatically wrong' for the expected reasons. As I said, this hinges on worldview. If, and that's an IF, we consider the possibility of a shorter lifespan of the planet to the point where our dating methods are returning for us longer periods of time than is true, and we could then conclude from that that our records of past temperatures actually took place over much shorter periods of time, well... you see where I am going with this I assume.

Once again, this is an alternative possibility that hinges on worldview. Obviously it isn't an option for those who reject the possibility of a largely shorter lifespan for the earth.

*Clumped your responses together as they refer to the same thing*

World view? You just confirmed my point about people being idiots, in an almost religious manor.

It's fact that past climate changes can be reconstructed based on analysis from ice / ocean floor cores, recent changes cannot without adding in the carbon emissions that the industrial revolution brought with it.
It's not like these thousands of scientists haven't gone over the data meticulously time and time again, even their climate reports are done from scratch every single time, unlike the hacks who are employed by corporate enterprise to refute the data.

Just to amply it, the general consensus among scientists saying climate change is real, is currently 97%, that's 97% of scientists working and specializing in the fields about climate.

[Stonecloak]

Consensus is a general agreement by most, not 100% agreement. These poll results are a good example. Lets just be ultra conservative and say that every vote that is not the top vote is a "denyer". That would still be a consesus at over 80%.

I agree. It's a small sample size, but the same poll 10 years ago probably would be less then 80%. 20 years even less, and so on. I've always loved science. In school It's the only subject I consistently got A+'s in. That said I don't just put all my faith in it. That's an oxymoron because science is very much the pursuit of knowledge, and that means discoveries of the past may be liable to be proven wrong one day.

[Waniou]

I believe there is a third choice, albeit not one that will be accepted as a possibility in most circles, as it would likely be written off as 'automatically wrong' for the expected reasons. As I said, this hinges on worldview. If, and that's an IF, we consider the possibility of a shorter lifespan of the planet to the point where our dating methods are returning for us longer periods of time than is true, and we could then conclude from that that our records of past temperatures actually took place over much shorter periods of time, well... you see where I am going with this I assume.

Once again, this is an alternative possibility that hinges on worldview. Obviously it isn't an option for those who reject the possibility of a largely shorter lifespan for the earth. But for those who do accept a shorter lifespan, this shortening of records (in terms of years) is something that has to happen anyway, that also solves this apparent problem we are presented with.

It solves the problem, yes, but introduces a whole host of new problems, largely to do with dating methods suddenly being wrong which can only be true if most of modern physics is also wrong. Radiometric dating is extremely reliable and throwing it out to "solve" climate change is completely insane.

[Gref]

it is definitely real. I just need to look at my childhood pictures. Winter pictures are all in snow till knee. However after I started high school, I have never seen snow of that much or even a little. I was born in 1987 and until I was 13 I have seen and played in snow knee high then never ever again.

It is real and I don't even need science for that.

[Garnier Fructis]

Once again, this is an alternative possibility that hinges on worldview. Obviously it isn't an option for those who reject the possibility of a largely shorter lifespan for the earth.

I recognized this as I wrote my post, and it's just as you said: I simply write it off as automatically wrong.

[RaoBurning]

I believe there is a third choice, albeit not one that will be accepted as a possibility in most circles, as it would likely be written off as 'automatically wrong' for the expected reasons. As I said, this hinges on worldview. If, and that's an IF, we consider the possibility of a shorter lifespan of the planet to the point where our dating methods are returning for us longer periods of time than is true, and we could then conclude from that that our records of past temperatures actually took place over much shorter periods of time, well... you see where I am going with this I assume.

Even if you radically compress the x-axis, the current spike in temperature still happens circa rising CO2 emissions due to industrialization, no? Even only taking data from when we started using reliable thermometers (1850-ish, I believe) we still see a dramatic spike after ye olden steam-punk tech really gets into full swing.

I'm dumb and can't link images so here's the graph.

I recognized this as I wrote my post, and it's just as you said: I simply write it off as automatically wrong.

Instead of dismissing things automatically, I take a moment to remind myself of all the hilarious ways the universe breaks in the attempt to fit 13 billion years of history into 6,000. Pet dinosaurs would have be sick though. Best form of child mortality.

[Incarnia]

It's beyond me how some people cannot see that human activity are playing a role in accelerating the global warming. The data is there! Numbers. Scientific consensus. We've known this for years, years! I knew it as a child even, and I'm 28 today. Don't worry I have gone through the phase of questioning and being skeptical about humans part in this. So it isn't something I've been taught as a kid and blindly hung onto since.
All those years have passed and what's happened is that the pile of evidence confirming this to be accurate have steadily grown. That humans are part in causing a rapid global warming effect. It isn't a question of IF anymore, it is a FACT. Climate change is inevitable, true, but that is not a good enough reason to stick your head into the sand and pretend we cannot affect the planet.
Sometimes I ask these deniers: 'Do you want your children/grandchildren to live on a less hospital planet? Because you refused to acknowledge the truth and preferred to live a comfortable life without having to go through the "trouble" of changing your ways?' - the answer is often avoidance, or you get the 'but I'll be dead'. Fucking hell.

Seeing people deny this is almost as crazy as seeing ignorant people claiming vaccines are pure poison the government is using on us because of an [insert conspiracy plot here]. Or it causes Autism because [Celebrity said so]. How thick can people get? It's scary.

What I also find highly frustrating is that people come off as environmentally hostile, while they probably are not at heart, when denying humans are responsible. Global warming AND human expansion are as well causing an alarming rate of species going extinct, this will most likely lead to our own species extinction. As if global warming itself wasn't enough as a threat. Or is this false too? The data says differently. (Sorry for derailing a bit).

[Aqueous]

Let's be honest, by now (with the wealth of evidence that's been found over the years) the deniers are just people sticking their heads under the sand. Maybe it's because the concept scares them, maybe it's because they don't want to take responsibility for shit they do that can affect the environment etc. but ultimately it's about convenience, money, maybe fear but certainly not the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

What I also find highly frustrating is that people come off as environmentally hostile, while they probably are not at heart, when denying humans are responsible. Global warming AND human expansion are as well causing an alarming rate of species going extinct, this will most likely lead to our own species extinction. As if global warming itself wasn't enough as a threat. Or is this false too? The data says differently. (Sorry for derailing a bit).

They're hostile because being defensive is a common mechanism when in doubt - deep down they likely realise how wrong they probably are.

[DeathbyFrostBomb73]

Yes, climate change is real. Yes, we as a species are contributing to it's effects- but we are not the sole cause. I think it would really behoove mankind to rid itself of militarism, banks and corporations. Until we're serious about dealing with these three things, then we aren't really serious about not destroying our environment.

[melodramocracy]

I have zero doubt that mans activities have an impact on climate. How much or little of one is where doubt comes into play.

[Gheld]

My beef with the climate change crowd is that climate change has become this big crutch for individuals to unload their personal responsibility as far as the environment goes upon everyone else.

The worst is the crossover between vegan hipsters and the climate change people.

I rode my cheap fixie bike that was manufactured in China without any environmental oversight while sipping a soy milk latte grown in soil that used to have a forest over it that was clearcut for agriculture served in a single use paper cup to tell you that what YOU are doing to the environment is wrong.

EDIT: Oh, and then as soon as the brake cable comes out of adjustment they throw the whole fucking bike in a landfill and buy a new one.

[Annoying]

Weeeeelllll. This topic is approached very rabidly by supporters. The "science" involved shows generous increases in "greenhouse gases". The unproven theories result in the conspiracy theory of Big Oil and Big Auto and Big Republicans conspiring to deny such a phenomenon exists. After reading the IPCC report ("scientists" hired to prove Climate Change) I can't buy into the "Theory of Global Warming/Climate Change due to Man-made causes". I'm sorry that this makes this a conspiracy to me. Unreliable protagonists + unreliable/disproven data + apocalyptic (the sky is falling!) "computer" predictions (GIGO) = skepticism.

Given the right data and probability I think I can prove that before the apocalyptic Al Gore scenario of global warming happens, a giant asteroid will collide with and wipe out all life on earth.



I am pretty sure the Earth can "weather" a rise in temperature over 140 years of 0.6 degrees Celsius. OMG the sky is NOT falling!

P.S. I hate it when pictures don't show up

You keep using that "theory" word wrong. A scientific theory is a fact, not a hypothesis. It's not the Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis. It's the Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change. A scientific theory is as close as we get to a proven fact. There's no such thing as an "unproven theory." Unproven hypotheses? Sure, but Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't one of those. To say otherwise means you doubt the scientific method or the validity of the thousands of peer reviewed documents that prove AgCC true.