Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[PoseidonF]

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

[1714092927]

1714092927

[o_e_l_e_o]

For the same reasons that people believe the Earth is flat or that vaccines don't work - they don't understand science, and think that somehow opinions are as equally valid as facts.

[Steamtyme]

For the same reasons that people believe the Earth is flat or that vaccines don't work - they don't understand science, and think that somehow opinions are as equally valid as facts.

In addition to this, there are "scientists" out there denouncing facts. These people are handed massive amounts of cash by Dark, Slick companies to bend the facts to suit their narrative.

Unfortunately we live in a society where you can cut yourself of from any opinion or facts you don't like, and just sit there in your own bubble of misinformation.

[boyptc]

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

Like the people in our streets say when they are doing something crazy.

"It's your own choice and this is our trip."

[o_e_l_e_o]

"It's your own choice and this is our trip."

But you don't get to choose if facts are true or not. That's what makes them facts.

[boyptc]

"It's your own choice and this is our trip."

But you don't get to choose if facts are true or not. That's what makes them facts.

These people sadly choose not to believe these facts.

Climate change is one of the biggest problem that everyone should be aware of and I don't know if they are just ignoring this fact or they don't want to get involve thinking of a solution.

[Jet Cash]

Because false information and misleading statistics make it difficult to understand exactly what is happening. Vaccines are no longer being used to prevent disease, but are being used as a tool for global eugenics, you only need to look at the poisons being added to vaccines, and the results of infecting and poisoning helathy babies to realise the truth. Similarly, the use of targetted climate change as a weapon of war, and the experiments to develop these, are possibly more damaging than the actions of consumers. Well maybe the constant destruction of trees and hedges is probably more damaging than the use of modern well maintained diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles export pollution from the cities into the countryside, but very few reports give enough factual analysis to establish this, because the governments want to be able to control vehicles from remote locations.

[salinizm]

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

Some people are skeptical about global warming because they think that earth has been taking yet another turn. I mean earth has phases from the its begining. So, climate change is a sign of this new era. That's why, people think there is no global warming.

[TheBiochemist]

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

Well if you mention what proof it is easier to answer and I think they mainly doubt why things change not that the change they see is real.

The main problem is that the climate always change over long periods of time, so there is always something to blame. We have gone from hot climate to ice age and back so many times, it might not be a problem many could arguee.

Can you really prove that the amount of dimming vs the amount of heat absorption is heating us, that no natural causes is to blame(sun etc)?

The next thing comes down to simple psychology, human brains do very bad with change, especially for the worse, and we rather blame nature then accept being part of said change.
We also must come to realization of the situation, something that requires humans to read up on it and focus on it, which they most likely won´t. If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

Good luck!

[TheCoinGrabber]

Remember when people put uranium in their sodas and smoke tobacco regularly? Remember what they told people who said those things are dangerous?

We sadly live in a world of information overload. With all that information around, people end up just choosing to believe what they "feel" to be true.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

There's that same mistaken argument again - there are no opposing facts. The facts are unequivocal and undisputed that climate change is real and man-made. There are opposing opinions, but they are just that - opinions.

[eelectrick]

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

It's either people's deniability or their enigmatic ignorance that hinders their own unique awareness on the planet and the changes in
the climate today. Climate change and global warming is serious, it's unprecedented and is accelerating alongside pollution and depletion
of natural resources. Social media and the growing number of news and documentaries throughout the years will attest to the fact that
climate change has already begun years ago, were headed to an unknown outcome if things get seriously worse. Ignorance is bliss.

[criza]

Climate change do have scientific proofs, concrete evidences, and strong observably effect on our Earth today. However, despite these justifications and exemplifications, there are some people who are still skeptical about it. Why? Well, I think that the reason why people are skeptical about the climate change issue is because people love to make excuses. I mean, we are afraid of the duties and responsibilities that were given to us. Thus, they think that when they start contradicting a certain concept, they will not obliged anymore to take over. Furthermore, one reason I think also is because of the thinking that: if I am not feeling the effect, then I will not do anything. Meaning, if its effects on us  is something we do not yet feel, then nothing we will do.

[Spendulus]

If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

There's that same mistaken argument again - there are no opposing facts. The facts are unequivocal and undisputed that climate change is real and man-made. There are opposing opinions, but they are just that - opinions.

Really? That's an interesting OPINION you have.

[The_Tick]

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

Well if you mention what proof it is easier to answer and I think they mainly doubt why things change not that the change they see is real.

The main problem is that the climate always change over long periods of time, so there is always something to blame. We have gone from hot climate to ice age and back so many times, it might not be a problem many could arguee.

Can you really prove that the amount of dimming vs the amount of heat absorption is heating us, that no natural causes is to blame(sun etc)?

The next thing comes down to simple psychology, human brains do very bad with change, especially for the worse, and we rather blame nature then accept being part of said change.
We also must come to realization of the situation, something that requires humans to read up on it and focus on it, which they most likely won´t. If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

Good luck!

I find that climate cycles are something that are not talked about enough. I certainly don't think that what humans are doing has no effect on the environment, but we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle. Another thing that bugs me is that in popular media sometimes so much responsibility is put on the end consumer, average people. If all the people in the world stop letting their vehicles idle when they aren't driving and start using reusable bags at the grocery store, it will still be a drop in the ocean compared to the effects industry and agriculture have on the environment. Talk about climate change is often a political stunt or an ad campaign. The issue is so complex. If everybody changes their light bulbs to some more environmentally-friendly ones, that may be a good thing, but you also have to take into account that a new factory had to be create to produce all those light bulbs. I've heard similar things about electric cars. Sure, it's great that electric cars don't burn fuel, but whats potential damage do the production and disposal of those huge batteries do to the environment.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Really? That's an interesting OPINION you have.

You misunderstand the distinction between opinions and facts. If you would like to provide evidence that climate change isn't happening, please feel free to do so.

we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle.

We have a data set going back literally hundreds of thousands of years. This is in absolutely no way a "natural cycle":

[Spendulus]

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

Well if you mention what proof it is easier to answer and I think they mainly doubt why things change not that the change they see is real.

The main problem is that the climate always change over long periods of time, so there is always something to blame. We have gone from hot climate to ice age and back so many times, it might not be a problem many could arguee.

Can you really prove that the amount of dimming vs the amount of heat absorption is heating us, that no natural causes is to blame(sun etc)?

The next thing comes down to simple psychology, human brains do very bad with change, especially for the worse, and we rather blame nature then accept being part of said change.
We also must come to realization of the situation, something that requires humans to read up on it and focus on it, which they most likely won´t. If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

Good luck!

I find that climate cycles are something that are not talked about enough. I certainly don't think that what humans are doing has no effect on the environment, but we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle. Another thing that bugs me is that in popular media sometimes so much responsibility is put on the end consumer, average people. If all the people in the world stop letting their vehicles idle when they aren't driving and start using reusable bags at the grocery store, it will still be a drop in the ocean compared to the effects industry and agriculture have on the environment. Talk about climate change is often a political stunt or an ad campaign. The issue is so complex. If everybody changes their light bulbs to some more environmentally-friendly ones, that may be a good thing, but you also have to take into account that a new factory had to be create to produce all those light bulbs. I've heard similar things about electric cars. Sure, it's great that electric cars don't burn fuel, but whats potential damage do the production and disposal of those huge batteries do to the environment.

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Obviously attributing climate to a natural cycle doesn't fit the desired narratives.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Obviously attributing climate to a natural cycle doesn't fit the desired narratives.

That's another great example of an opinion. And now here are the facts:

[Quickseller]

This is in no small part because those who believe in global warming refuse to debate those who want more information. Anyone who does not blindly support the global warming theory is shouted down, and in the case of Exxon recently, called a criminal.

The fact is that temperature measurements from more than 50 or so years ago is horribly imprecise, and the change over the last two generations is little more than a statistical anomaly.

Further, the global warming theory fails to account for the ice age, and the subsequent thawing. The world is subject to a cycle of temperature changes. Modern technology may or may not be accelerating this cycle, however history has shown us that both humans and the world will survive.

[o_e_l_e_o]

the change over the last two generations is little more than a statistical anomaly.

This is provably incorrect.

It has been calculated that there is a >99.999% probability that the global temperature rise "is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere".




Atmospheric CO₂ has stayed within 2 standard deviations of the mean for the last 800,000 years at least. In the last 100 years, we have catapulted the levels up to over 5 standard deviations away from the mean. That means there is a less than 0.0000001% chance that this is a "statistical anomaly".

history has shown us that both humans and the world will survive.

The human race will survive, sure. But when sea levels rise, the land becomes too barren to farm and there is global famine and drought, billions will die.