Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[Spendulus]

I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented.  Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures?  We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn. 

In the presentation of temperature data, and in the near term likely effects of global warming, there has been massive lying. That's the only way to put it.

There has been some reasonable statements and cautions about possible dangers, that is mostly seen from scientists and engineers. From lay people and environmentalists, there has been massive exaggerations and outright lying.

Including on this forum. Who is "caught up in how temperature data is presented" is those doing the lying, not I. For example, people that try to cry hysterically that Greenland and Antarctica will melt, blah-blah-blah.

[1715363771]

1715363771

[1715363771]

1715363771

[1715363771]

1715363771

[coins4commies]

I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes to better understand your line of thinking. 

Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures.  I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like

-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption

In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate.  Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause.  Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring. 

The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming.  When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change.  Also, water has a very high heat capacity. 

When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder.  This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages. 

Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.

[TECSHARE]

I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes to better understand your line of thinking. 

Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures.  I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like

-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption

In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate.  Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause.  Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring. 

The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming.  When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change.  Also, water has a very high heat capacity. 

When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder.  This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages. 

Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you like, but this doesn't make your dogma any more based in fact. You have no hard evidence of anthropogenic climate change. All you have are theories, estimates, and simulations.

Is there evidence the Earths climate is changing? Sure, some of it seems reliable. The problem is with science you have to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to create a control. There is no control to compare to here. You have no way of proving your theory when there is far more evidence this is a result of sun cycles than human activity.

[coins4commies]

There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though.  The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence.  We don't want climate change to be real but you want it to not be real and then reach for evidence against it.  there is a difference in motives here and that difference puts you at odds with science because you are cherrypicking evidence that you think supports what you want to be true.  

scientific theories don't need to be proven correct.  theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.

[Spendulus]

There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though.  The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence.  ...

So now it's clear you don't know what you are talking about. That being the case, please stop trying to push your own ignorance on others. Here is one example of effects of solar and space weather on climate. This is CERN and the CLOUD experiment, pretty darn reputable.

https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050. One of the main reasons for this large uncertainty, which makes it difficult for society to know how best to act against climate change, is a poor understanding of aerosol particles in the atmosphere and their effects on clouds.

...The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles ...

So since you know so much, which is it? 1.5C or 4.5C?

Hint: There's only one right answer, anything else is lying.

[cool4y]

All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.

Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)

That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.

Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."

Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.

Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."

Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.

"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."

More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.

     I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.

I couldn't agree more CO2 is essential for life—animals exhale it, plants sequester it. It exists in Earth's atmosphere in comparably small concentrations, but is vital for sustaining life. Since the Industrial Revolution, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. The issues arise when there is excessive amount of CO2.

[BADecker]

All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.

Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)

That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.

Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."

Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.

Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."

Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.

"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."

More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.

     I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.

I couldn't agree more CO2 is essential for life—animals exhale it, plants sequester it. It exists in Earth's atmosphere in comparably small concentrations, but is vital for sustaining life. Since the Industrial Revolution, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. The issues arise when there is excessive amount of CO2.

But we haven't come close to excessive amounts of CO2. Excessive amounts would be when there is more than enough to:
Warm and melt the poles;
Make Siberia, Northern Canada, and Antarctica habitable;
Put enough moisture into the atmosphere (via heat) to water the Sahara;
Make atmospheric water to be enough to block bad cosmic radiation;
Make atmospheric water enough so that the cosmic radiation that gets through turns the water into H2O2 so that multitudes of deadly diseases are killed off by peroxide bleaching;
Etc.

All this is why the one-worlders are making CO2 look bad. If there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, all of the above would happen, populations would explode, the one-worlders would lose control, we wouldn't need a medical, and people could become free, healthier, and happy.

[Boys27]

people who are skeptical about global warming because the impact cannot be felt directly, maybe the impact can be felt after several years, they also assume that global warming is only an issue that does not need to be considered, and warming gloabal can be overcome by scientists

[alexrosenb]

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact. I don't know much about gravity but I sure know it's working every single day. I don't know much about medicine but I know enough people helped by it. Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy. Nowadays climate change gave way to Artificial Intelligence taking over the world and stealing all our jobs. I give it as much credence as I do to people on the right freaking out over trans people signifying the end of the West. 10% truth, 90% BS.

[Spendulus]

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....

.....Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy.

Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?

[TECSHARE]

There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though.  The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence.  We don't want climate change to be real but you want it to not be real and then reach for evidence against it.  there is a difference in motives here and that difference puts you at odds with science because you are cherrypicking evidence that you think supports what you want to be true.  

scientific theories don't need to be proven correct.  theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.

Oh I see, so the idea that the sun heats the Earth has been debunked now has it? Do you even bother reading what you write? No, YOU are the one claiming anthropogenic climate change is a thing, the burden of proof is ON YOU. You keep talking about all this "proof" and "evidence" as if it is just an accepted fact. That's not how science or debate work. What am I cherry picking here? Now you are just throwing names of fallacies at me and using them as a cudgel. That doesn't even make sense. I swear, if you really are a teacher your students should start a class action lawsuit for defrauding them of their tuition.

[coins4commies]

There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though.  The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence.  We don't want climate change to be real but you want it to not be real and then reach for evidence against it.  there is a difference in motives here and that difference puts you at odds with science because you are cherrypicking evidence that you think supports what you want to be true.  

scientific theories don't need to be proven correct.  theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.

Oh I see, so the idea that the sun heats the Earth has been debunked now has it? Do you even bother reading what you write? No, YOU are the one claiming anthropogenic climate change is a thing, the burden of proof is ON YOU. You keep talking about all this "proof" and "evidence" as if it is just an accepted fact. That's not how science or debate work. What am I cherry picking here? Now you are just throwing names of fallacies at me and using them as a cudgel. That doesn't even make sense. I swear, if you really are a teacher your students should start a class action lawsuit for defrauding them of their tuition.

I am not the one who introduced the idea of anthropogenic climate change.    The entire community of atmospheric scientists did that.    You have a strange way of taking widely accepted scientific ideas, and saying they are coming from me and my bias. The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic.  The burden of proof is obviously on the person who goes against almost the entirety of the scientific community.

Your claim is not that the sun heats the Earth.  Your claim is that the INCREASE in temperature is due to the sun.  Those are two very different claims.  Everyone knows the first, and the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.  

I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?

[TECSHARE]

I am not the one who introduced the idea of anthropogenic climate change.    The entire community of atmospheric scientists did that.    You have a strange way of taking widely accepted scientific ideas, and saying they are coming from me and my bias. The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic.  The burden of proof is obviously on the person who goes against almost the entirety of the scientific community.

Your claim is not that the sun heats the Earth.  Your claim is that the INCREASE in temperature is due to the sun.  Those are two very different claims.  Everyone knows the first, and the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.  

I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?

Yeah, we all know you didn't create the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Yet here you are arguing that it is legitimate. You know what that means? The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate empirical data to support the conclusion YOU SUPPORT.

"The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic."

This is quite a telling statement, thank you. This is what is known as an appeal to authority or and appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. One that clearly demonstrates you think science comes from consensus. You skipped a step. The part with the empirical data. Now if it is just such solid science, why don't you present it so we can address it? Of course you can't so you need to create some kind of lame attempt at manipulation via the common need for humans to be accepted. Everyone knows do they? EVERYONE? Quite a bold claim.

And yes your meaningless unsourced pictures loaded.

[Spendulus]

...I am not the one who introduced the idea of anthropogenic climate change.    The entire community of atmospheric scientists did that. ....

Actually, no it was a rather small group that did that.

Like Hansen doing a Senate presentation on the subject in 1988, having first rigged the building air conditioners to not work. Then your friend Al Gore started his clown act.

... the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.  

I'm sure you saw my earlier quote but let me repeat it.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050

If everybody knows so much why is there a 3x variability in the estimates? They are quite straightforward in stating what little they really do know.

I'm sick and tired of political operatives such as you restating scientific findings into memes and partial truths that support your objectives, but bear little relation to the actual science or none whatsoever.

I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?

Graphs display data. If you want to use graphs please source them. Otherwise I certainly wouldn't access them. It would not be the first time that "evidence" has been presented that on examination was just propaganda from a radical political group.

.....
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming.  When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change.  Also, water has a very high heat capacity.  ....

Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it? Then I'll entertain your ideas of higher and lower temperatures occurring statistically significantly more often and/or predictions of future climate change. (because then you have values to plug into formulas to find the variance, right?)

If you can't do that simple thing, shut the fuck up.

[alexrosenb]

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....

.....Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy.

Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?

I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

[cool4y]

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....

.....Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy.

Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?

I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

Interesting point of view. Sometimes it's healthy to change the perspective in order to figure out the right answer.

[TECSHARE]

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....

.....Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy.

Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?

I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

And it doesn't arouse your suspicion at all that hard data is so hard to find?

[Astargath]

It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....

.....Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.

I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy.

Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?

I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

Couldn't agree more, there is not much you can do by yourself to check any of this shit. Unlike something like the flat earth, where you can actually do tests/experiments by yourself and you don't even need a lot of scientific knowledge. I would give you merit for this post but I have 0 to give
A lot of people here act like they know everything about it because they read a few articles here and there.

[Spendulus]

....
I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

Yep. Even asking the question P/NP narrows the group addressed to one in a hundred, and that's extremely optimistic. But "climate change" broadens the focus, to almost a ridiculous chatter with noise everywhere, signal rare.

The prior question I posed to another forum member illustrates the essential issues behind the science of climate change quite nicely.

Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it?

Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

[bluefirecorp_]

am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

Pretty much anyone arguing against climate change has investments in accelerating change.

That's pretty much the only logical conclusion to why people overwhelming deny the actual, scientific, peer reviewed information.