Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[Quickseller]

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.

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

I have not (and will not) reviewed that study, however it is one study, and there are other ways to evaluate what data is relevant and draw conclusions. Unfortunately, anyone who even questions the conclusion of global warming is shouted down, so there is little to no debate within the scientific community on the matter.

[BADecker]

Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

Skepticism revolves around the kind of climate change. Simple climate change is all around us all the time. Even equatorial jungles have climate change when it rains and when it doesn't.

Global warming and global cooling has been going on in cycles for a long time. The idea that we can do much of anything about climate change is what skeptics are all about.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

It's actually closer to 9%. Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

Unfortunately, anyone who even questions the conclusion of global warming is shouted down, so there is little to no debate within the scientific community on the matter.

I have done zero shouting down. I'm the one providing evidence and facts for my position. You're the one refusing to read or respond to them. If anyone is ignoring the other side here, it's you.

[Spendulus]

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:

Bah. You can't even read a sentence and understand it.

Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

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.

[Spendulus]

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

It's actually closer to 9%. Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters......I'm the one providing evidence and facts...

When it all melts?

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Asserting that is scientific opinion is an outright lie.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

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.

Calling someone "factboy" as an insult is a damning indictment of your own intelligence: "Look at this guy caring about facts and the truth! What a loser! I don't care about facts. I only use baseless opinions."

Yes, temperature changes in the Northern Pacific fluctuate with the PDO. However, the global trend of warming continues despite this.

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Please provide a direct quote for where I ever mentioned the IPCC. Nice strawman, though.

[Spendulus]

Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

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.

.....
Yes, temperature changes in the Northern Pacific fluctuate with the PDO. However, the global trend of warming continues despite this.

Misframing the answer to the argument. Classical propaganda technique where the answer is an answer to A DIFFERENT QUESTION - namely the question you wanted to ask with the answer you wanted. You're wasting peoples' time there, fact boy.

When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters......I'm the one providing evidence and facts...

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Please provide a direct quote for where I ever mentioned the IPCC. Nice strawman, though.

It's not a straw man, rather the IPCC reports are is the generally accepted set of facts and current science on climate change, periodically revised. Apparently you don't even know what a straw man argument is, but you can go look that fact up.

Since you're the FACTBOY, I've simply asked you to show where, in the generally accepted set of facts and current science, the IPCC reports, there is any mention of "ALL THE ICE MELTING."

I'm sure you've got some facts to support that wild bit of nonsense, right?

If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause, and may have exaggerated to create a fear and trembling effect. Or alternately, it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have. No big deal. Have a nice day!

[o_e_l_e_o]

Since you're the FACTBOY, I've simply asked you to show where, in the generally accepted set of facts and current science, the IPCC reports, there is any mention of "ALL THE ICE MELTING."

Once again, I never said that and never mentioned the IPCC. You are attacking an argument I did not make. That's the literal definition of a strawman.

Nice move to ignore the actual facts, figures and studies I've presented and instead to attempt to argue over the semantics of language. It's a classic loser's tactic.

[Spendulus]

Since you're the FACTBOY, I've simply asked you to show where, in the generally accepted set of facts and current science, the IPCC reports, there is any mention of "ALL THE ICE MELTING."

Once again, I never said that and never mentioned the IPCC. You are attacking an argument I did not make. That's the literal definition of a strawman.

FROM WIKIPEDIA.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I am only asking for authoritative facts on a wild assertion you made. I have not made a straw man argument, that's ridiculous. I only point out that authoritative and reputable peer reviewed science en mass refutes your argument.

But perhaps you have better facts than the IPCC.

Are you going to share them with us? I'm certain a lot of people would like to know if there is going to be a 70 meter sea level rise, which was "one of your facts."

[o_e_l_e_o]

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

I really don't know how many times I have to explain this. I never claimed this, and I made no mention of the IPCC. You made this up and then attacked it. That's called a strawman.

My point is that there is enough ice to raise sea levels by 70 meters. That's a fact. Whether it all melts in a hundred years or a million years, I don't know, nobody knows, and I never claimed otherwise.

Please continue to ignore the proven 99.999% link between human activity and global warming and the >5 sigma change in the CO₂ level that I linked to earlier. I appreciate that it's difficult to refute such overwhelming evidence, especially with zero facts of your own.

[SkyFlakes]

Some people are skeptical about climate change because all of them don't have care on our world. That's sad because there is really a few ones who understands climate change scientifically yet some of them were being skeptical. I think this behavior is being selfish as we tend to just think of ourselves, something that we could have benifit. We all should be aware of what is happening in our world because it continues to change positively and negatively.

[Spendulus]

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

I really don't know how many times I have to explain this. I never claimed this, and I made no mention of the IPCC. You made this up and then attacked it. That's called a strawman.

My point is that there is enough ice to raise sea levels by 70 meters. That's a fact. Whether it all melts in a hundred years or a million years, I don't know, nobody knows, and I never claimed otherwise.
....

Still skirting the issue, using lame dodges, and goalpost shifting?

Here is what you said.

Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when? What facts, if any, do you have to support the wild fantasy that all the ice will melt?

I'm sure you've got some facts, right?

If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause, and may have exaggerated to create a fear and trembling effect. Or alternately, it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have. No big deal. Have a nice day!

...
Please continue to ignore the proven 99.999% link between human activity and global warming and the >5 sigma change in the CO₂ level that I linked to earlier. I appreciate that it's difficult to refute such overwhelming evidence, especially with zero facts of your own.

Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.

But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/

Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....

[Spendulus]

...
Please continue to ignore the proven 99.999% link between human activity and global warming and the >5 sigma change in the CO₂ level that I linked to earlier. I appreciate that it's difficult to refute such overwhelming evidence, especially with zero facts of your own.

Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.

But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/

Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....

[Quickseller]

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

It's actually closer to 9%. Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

I am not sure what that picture is of, perhaps of an ice cap on land. The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

The assertion that all of the world's ice will melt seems like fear mongering to me. 

[Charles_Summers]

The major point is the cost. Many people are concerned that even if climate change is real and should be paid some attention, is it really worth it? There is also the argument that climate change has always existed. The alarm springs up now because we are only getting to observe it properly. Even if we practice all these measures targeted towards containing climate change, how much of a difference can we make? Governments too are using this topic as a means of carting away with our money. The expenditure mostly does not measure up to the results. Though of course, a clean earth would be of great profit to us all.

[adamantasaurus]

It's because people exist that voted for trump, the entire population can't be logical we have to have some looneys out there to balance it out.

Of course climate change is real anyone that is even a little skeptical about should really go in for a mental evaluation.

With that said there are so many things that can be done today and right now that could offset the climate change it gets me so frustrated with all the corps and politicians just standing in the way being a bunch of fckin NIMBY's (not in my backyard) about anything that will help the planet.

[Spendulus]

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

It's actually closer to 9%. Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

I am not sure what that picture is of, perhaps of an ice cap on land. The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

The assertion that all of the world's ice will melt seems like fear mongering to me. 

Classical fear mongering, and not even supported by radical environmentalists.

The North Pole ice is floating, but Greenland is two miles of ice on top of land. Antartica is ice on top of land, with the arguable exception of the western peninsula. Obviously ice on land is not even influenced by warming or changing ocean currents.

Now for the meteorology. Temperatures on Earth go DOWN as you go UP in altitude. About 3C per 1000'. So if you go up 10000 feet, it's much, much colder. Now think about the effect of that in polar regions, where it's already very cold due to little sunlight.

Arguments that Greenland and Antarctica will melt are simply unscientific.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when?

Now you've finally got it! Yes, the ice will all melt. No, I don't know when. No, nobody does. It could be in 100 years from global warming, it could be in millions of years with a repeat of the climate seen in the Eocene.

If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause

I don't "believe" in global warming anymore than I "believe" in gravity. I understand that global warming is happening because I understand the facts and data. Using language like "believe" is commonly used by the scientific illiterate to create the illusion of controversy where none exists.

it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have.

Most signature campaigns don't count posts in Politics & Society, so this is just yet more incorrect nonsense.

-snip-

Excluding results exceeding 5 standard deviations is a perfectly reasonable practice when looking at trends. 5 standard deviations is actually a very generous cut off - 3 standard deviations would be more than sufficient. Regardless, the CRUTEM data also exclude plenty of results that are above average temperature, for example Riyadh, Feb 2002 (5.5 SDs hotter than the mean), Barquisimeto, August 2008 (6.6 SDs hotter than the mean), Diego-Suarez, Nov 2013 (7.8 SDs hotter than the mean). In fact, since 1990, they have excluded approximately 6 times as many data points for being too hot than for being too cold. If you include all the outliers, the trend upwards is even steeper.

The mere fact that you would post some nonsense ramblings  written by a non scientist on his pseudoscientific blog that actually prove my point even more as if that is an appropriate rebuttal to a peer reviewed meta analysis is hilarious. It is clear that neither you nor the author understand the data.

It is also hilarious that you are quite happy to refer to scientific data and when you think the data support your position,* but equally happy to ignore them all when they contradict you.

*They don't.

The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

Correct. Also irrelevant. 10% of the world's land surface area is covered in ice, approximately 15 million km². This is known as land ice. When it melts, its volume is completely added to the sea. As an aside, even sea ice will raise the water level a little when it melts as fresh water is less dense than the salt water.

Arguments that Greenland and Antarctica will melt are simply unscientific.

This is the most ridiculous thing you have posted yet. We are quite literally observing Greenland and Antarctica melting before our eyes.

[Spendulus]

Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when?

Now you've finally got it! Yes, the ice will all melt. No, I don't know when. No, nobody does. It could be in 100 years from global warming, it could be in millions of years with a repeat of the climate seen in the Eocene.

Nonsense.
We're overdue for another ice age. That's inevitable, as it is caused by orbital perturbations. Do you have any clue as to how far south the ice sheets will extend?

Why not admit it? You posted something that wasn't true, no more or less.

Arguments that Greenland and Antarctica will melt are simply unscientific.

This is the most ridiculous thing you have posted yet. We are quite literally observing Greenland and Antarctica melting before our eyes.

Graphs won't help you.
Please, no ducking dodging or goal post shifting.
You're again saying things that are grossly inaccurate and misleading. You've failed in hyping alarmism by your claim that Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt, and you know it.

From Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now.[4] This was probably due to a number of factors: reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere.[4] The massive sheets of ice locked away water, lowering the sea level, exposing continental shelves, joining land masses together, and creating extensive coastal plains.[5] During the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, the sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.[6]

[o_e_l_e_o]

We're overdue for another ice age.

Wrong. We are currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age.

That's inevitable, as it is caused by orbital perturbations.

Wrong again. Ice ages are caused by many separate factors, not just one. Also, the term you are looking for is Milankovitch cycles, not orbital perturbations.

Graphs won't help you.
Please, no ducking dodging or goal post shifting.
You're again saying things that are grossly inaccurate and misleading. You've failed in hyping alarmism by your claim that Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt, and you know it.

What are you even talking about? "Graphs won't help you"? You realise the graphs are just representations of facts and evidence? Right? Honestly, this is beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, since in your world facts are less valid than your technique of just spouting whatever nonsense you make up, here are some photos instead. Can't wait to hear how somehow these aren't valid either.

From Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now.[4] This was probably due to a number of factors: reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere.[4] The massive sheets of ice locked away water, lowering the sea level, exposing continental shelves, joining land masses together, and creating extensive coastal plains.[5] During the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, the sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.[6]

What has this got to do with anything? Or is your argument now "it can't possible be getting warmer, because once upon a time it was really cold"?


Honestly, I'm getting bored here. Your argument seems to have degenerated to "throw random somewhat scientific terms at the wall and see what sticks". And are you just ignoring that the one link you did provide actually hurt your case more than helped it? You don't even understand the terms you use or the data you are linking to. The facts on my side are overwhelming - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. If, however, you are going to just keep spouting nonsense and made up assertions, then I'm wasting my time.