Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[Spendulus]

Because there are people that believes that whatever is going on in our environment right now is just a normal occurrence, not knowing that every year, the weather is getting worst....

Yes, the weather right now is totally normal.

It's not getting worse every year.

I understand there's considerable propaganda with every extreme weather even to shape public opinion, but try to get past that.

[bluefirecorp_]

https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.

[Spendulus]

https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.

Actually, at least in this case, they are not the presenter of fake news. Let's look at exactly what they say.

Of course, climate change is only adding to a problem that already existed in Shishmaref — it was always vulnerable to erosion, making it a risky place for a permanent settlement.

So why was it there to begin with?

It’s a question Kelly Eningowuk, who heads the Anchorage-based Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska, hears a lot.

“I've heard something to the effect of, ‘These dumb Eskimos, why did they build their community on a barrier island?’” Eningowuk says. “The fact of the matter is, because [that’s where] the church and the Bureau of Indian Affairs school was built.”

The presenter of fake news is YOU, linking to a news event and imputing content to it that the link does not have. The article clearly says that without the Western influence, without our putting facilities there that should not have been there, the Inuits would not have a settlement there. They were NOMADIC. I'd support our paying to relocate them but not on some fake and rigged argument about climate change. Barrier islands ERODE. Duh...

Please stop the fake news.

[bluefirecorp_]

https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.

Concern troll

News reporters report a guy's story. Overall, they're reporting on the local, normally uneducated, villages. By uneducated, they're just cultural breeding grounds, really. Give the story a watch man, instead of just looking for troll points.

It's an interesting story of these entire remote villages dealing with climate change. They should be moving, they should be concerned, but they're just staying put, because culture. The ones that do want to move, can't because funding.


However, if you think NPR presents 'fake news', that's your prerogative. They're a fair and unbiased* source of information.

* They normally report any connections they have to the stories.

** NPR's funding: https://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2017/National_Public_Radio_Consolidate_Financial_Statements_D1617_FINAL.pdf

[Spendulus]

https://www.pri.org/categories/big-melt

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-22/alaskan-village-falling-sea-washington-looking-other-way

But Congress was not supportive of helping with the move. Many members weren’t — and still aren’t — willing to accept that human-caused climate change is even real.

NPR tends to be pretty unbiased. I guess they're more "fake news". rofl.

Concern troll

News reporters report a guy's story. Overall, they're reporting on the local, normally uneducated, villages. By uneducated, they're just cultural breeding grounds, really. Give the story a watch man, instead of just looking for troll points.

It's an interesting story of these entire remote villages dealing with climate change. They should be moving, they should be concerned, but they're just staying put, because culture. The ones that do want to move, can't because funding.
....

Now you are plain lying, misrepresenting what I said directly. Here is your misrepresentation of my comments.

I said this "Actually, at least in this case, they are not the presenter of fake news."

To which you delete my comments and impute the opposite.

However, if you think NPR presents 'fake news', that's your prerogative. They're a fair and unbiased* source of information.

Here is exactly what I then said, which you deleted in order to present that misinformation.

The presenter of fake news is YOU, linking to a news event and imputing content to it that the link does not have. The article clearly says that without the Western influence, without our putting facilities there that should not have been there, the Inuits would not have a settlement there. They were NOMADIC. I'd support our paying to relocate them but not on some fake and rigged argument about climate change. Barrier islands ERODE. Duh...

Please stop the fake news.

[BADecker]

The problem isn't climate change. If it stops raining in the jungle for 10 minutes, the climate has changed. Many countries have seasons... climate change. The problem has to do with the way climate change is described by some people.

In a different post and thread about global warming, I said that global cooling has been in effect since about the year 2000. I misspoke. What is happening is that the rate of global warming is slowing down. However, we might be to the point of global cooling taking over, and I just haven't read about it, yet.

[TECSHARE]

Rather than respond bluefirecorp_ just continues to move on, not bothering to support his premise with proof. It is much easier to sell bullshit when you stay away from facts and debate stuff that has no demonstrable direct causal connection.

Stop running away and making excuses.
QUOTE YOUR EMPIRICAL DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

[Blanca_Gregory]

Well, put it this way: people deny or hate anything they don't understand and know nothing about. Worst is misinformation. These days it's so easy to get information from everyone and everywhere, and most of them are false. If they don't believe in climate change, let them believe otherwise. Someday, when the climate gets worst, to the point where it will affect our civilization, they will finally understand and believe it's real after all. Just you wait and see.

[BADecker]

Why would anyone think that changes in climate (climate change) isn't happening or hasn't happened? It is all around us?

The thing that is misleading is the way some people have made the term "climate change" to mean something that they expressly want us to believe, when there isn't any proof for it.

Consider this. Scientists claim that evolution happened over millions of years, and that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Did climate change wipe out the human race over that time? No! Did each of those people die? Yes!

Go look at the cemeteries and see if people die. Go find someone who is over 200 years old so that we can see that maybe people don't die after all.

You're gonna die! With or without climate change, you're gonna die.

Climate change is a bunch-of-lies program some elite have set in place to play on your fears in ways so that they can gain control over you and your money.

[af_newbie]

Why would anyone think that changes in climate (climate change) isn't happening or hasn't happened? It is all around us?

The thing that is misleading is the way some people have made the term "climate change" to mean something that they expressly want us to believe, when there isn't any proof for it.

Consider this. Scientists claim that evolution happened over millions of years, and that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Did climate change wipe out the human race over that time? No! Did each of those people die? Yes!

Go look at the cemeteries and see if people die. Go find someone who is over 200 years old so that we can see that maybe people don't die after all.

You're gonna die! With or without climate change, you're gonna die.

Climate change is a bunch-of-lies program some elite have set in place to play on your fears in ways so that they can gain control over you and your money.

There is some evidence that we were almost wiped out about 70,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory

Today, the problem is several magnitudes larger but we have the technology to muddle through and continue to destroy our habitat.

Ignorance is bliss.  You can deny it, but it will not change the fact that each year young people get their driver's licenses and buy new homes, built on farmlands.  

As more people join the pollution train than leave it, you have a positive feedback loop that nobody is talking about.

[bluefirecorp_]

Well, put it this way: people deny or hate anything they don't understand and know nothing about. Worst is misinformation. These days it's so easy to get information from everyone and everywhere, and most of them are false. If they don't believe in climate change, let them believe otherwise. Someday, when the climate gets worst, to the point where it will affect our civilization, they will finally understand and believe it's real after all. Just you wait and see.

They'll deny it then even. Blame it on the wraith of God or some other nonsense. People absolutely refuse to accept reality.

I do agree with the sentiment that there's not really much reason to argue with them. They're not looking to change their opinion.

--

Climate getting to that point won't really be good for anyone. Think of the animals. Think of the children.

--

As more people join the pollution train than leave it, you have a positive feedback loop that nobody is talking about.

We needed radical, dramatic change globally years ago. We've just entered the start of the loop. Hopefully, we'll be able to make a technological break through to solve the problem globally. Awareness simply won't work. It seems there's a loud bunch of people that are science-denying idiots. It's the same shit as anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, moon-conspiracist, etc.

To be honest, other than an amazing megastructure that can offset our carbon emissions, I don't see the science making way for a lot of the active individuals here in politics and society, regardless of how much evidence is presented.

[TECSHARE]

Well, put it this way: people deny or hate anything they don't understand and know nothing about. Worst is misinformation. These days it's so easy to get information from everyone and everywhere, and most of them are false. If they don't believe in climate change, let them believe otherwise. Someday, when the climate gets worst, to the point where it will affect our civilization, they will finally understand and believe it's real after all. Just you wait and see.

They'll deny it then even. Blame it on the wraith of God or some other nonsense. People absolutely refuse to accept reality.

I do agree with the sentiment that there's not really much reason to argue with them. They're not looking to change their opinion.

--

Climate getting to that point won't really be good for anyone. Think of the animals. Think of the children.

--

As more people join the pollution train than leave it, you have a positive feedback loop that nobody is talking about.

We needed radical, dramatic change globally years ago. We've just entered the start of the loop. Hopefully, we'll be able to make a technological break through to solve the problem globally. Awareness simply won't work. It seems there's a loud bunch of people that are science-denying idiots. It's the same shit as anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, moon-conspiracist, etc.

To be honest, other than an amazing megastructure that can offset our carbon emissions, I don't see the science making way for a lot of the active individuals here in politics and society, regardless of how much evidence is presented.

Since you have opted to ignore me since you have realized you are incapable of debating me logically, I have decided I will simply just start replying to your other comments

I haven't seen anyone here bring God into this except for you, just now. This is just more character assassination having nothing to do with the facts. "Radical" change huh? Such as what? Oh please do tell me your plans to fix this problem you think humans are causing.

You don't see the science making way.... WAT? WTF does that even mean. Also if you want to convince people, perhaps post some actual empirical data instead of projections, theories, and simulations and pretending they are facts.

[iwhoss]

Greed, lack of information, misinformation, lack of education, ignorance, Stupidity, and populism. That pretty much sums it up.

[Becksinsky]

Greed, lack of information, misinformation, lack of education, ignorance, Stupidity, and populism. That pretty much sums it up.

Unfortunately it's true. Our society isn`t ripe yet to realize the danger of global warming and to start doing something. But I'm afraid when everyone realizes it, it will be too late.

[bluefirecorp_]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts
on human and natural systems. ¹

1. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an
assignment of confidence. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. A level of
confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The following
terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%,
likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely
likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. See for more details: Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame,
H. Held, E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe and F.W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is
extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was
caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate
of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3). Anthropogenic
forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century
over every continental region except Antarctica4
. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since
1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice
sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely
made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) and to global mean sea level rise
observed since the 1970s. {1.3, Figure 1.10}

It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily
and seasonal timescales, as global mean surface temperature increases. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a
higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. {2.2.1}

---
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

[Spendulus]

Rather than respond bluefirecorp_ just continues to move on, not bothering to support his premise with proof. It is much easier to sell bullshit when you stay away from facts and debate stuff that has no demonstrable direct causal connection.

Stop running away and making excuses.
QUOTE YOUR EMPIRICAL DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY .....

But the sock puppets support the theory too!

Look at the consensus!

[TECSHARE]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts
on human and natural systems. ¹

1. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an
assignment of confidence. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. A level of
confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The following
terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%,
likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely
likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. See for more details: Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame,
H. Held, E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe and F.W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is
extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was
caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate
of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3). Anthropogenic
forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century
over every continental region except Antarctica4
. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since
1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice
sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely
made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) and to global mean sea level rise
observed since the 1970s. {1.3, Figure 1.10}

It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily
and seasonal timescales, as global mean surface temperature increases. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a
higher frequency and longer duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. {2.2.1}

---
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

Gee, it is likely they like to make lots of projections. It almost seems like all of your "facts" are really just theories, projections, and simulations. Lets pretend for the sake of argument that these studies even represented facts. Now lets look at how many times the IPCC has been exposed for fraud and manipulating data to get desired results.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_account_for_most_warming_attributed_to_agw/
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/workday/2018/10/25/a-top-priority-for-todays-cfo-having-confidence-in-your-data/


Long story short, the IPCC has been shown to not take into account urban heat islands when placing temperature monitoring stations leading so skewed (higher) measurements. In addition their models are based off of the data presented by Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been proven to have manipulated the past data to make it appear lower than it should have to give the appearance of a rise in temperature. Your supposed facts here have already been shredded, you just refuse to take our head out of the sand and review it, because if it disagrees with you, it must be made by "science denying idiots".

[Spendulus]

....

Long story short, the IPCC has been shown to not take into account urban heat islands when placing temperature monitoring stations leading so skewed (higher) measurements. In addition their models are based off of the data presented by Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been proven to have manipulated the past data....

The IPCC also ignored solar influences on climate. Which is really pretty stupid if you think about it.

[bluefirecorp_]

It'a pretty funny that people link "conservipedia" as scientific evidence.

Holy shit, might as well just post an entire "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" as your argument.

Hey, guys, YOU'RE ALL WRONG BECAUSE *PEDIA says so - idiots from the right.


They don't even argue the merits of the science. They literally just spread misinformation and bullshit without actually reading or understanding the evidence.

People need to start paying attention to the sides. The side offering science evidence vs the side offering feelings.

[TECSHARE]

It'a pretty funny that people link "conservipedia" as scientific evidence.

Holy shit, might as well just post an entire "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" as your argument.

Hey, guys, YOU'RE ALL WRONG BECAUSE *PEDIA says so - idiots from the right.


They don't even argue the merits of the science. They literally just spread misinformation and bullshit without actually reading or understanding the evidence.

People need to start paying attention to the sides. The side offering science evidence vs the side offering feelings.

I find it hilarious you lecture me about arguing the merits of science when literally all you just did was attack the source, without addressing a single one of its refutations, or my own for that matter. I explained my position, refuting yours, using simple language and provided sources to back it up. Now you try.