Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[TECSHARE]

It's a scientific fact that the overall temperature is rising. The problem most people have with this theory, is that the media is claiming it's due to human influences that the worlds temperature is rising. Which can be disproven very easily. Humans have a very, very minor effect on climate change. The worlds temperature has gone up and down over the last thousands and thousands of years. For example : 300 years ago it was almost 1 C° higher than it is now.
So that's my problem with the theory. Although you simply can't deny that climate change isn't happening.

Here's a nice timeline. It's pretty smooth, even though there's changes greater than 1C. Notice the extreme curve in recent history?

EXCESSIVELY LONG CHART BASED ON IPCC DATA

Normally non-man made climate change takes place over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.

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]

....
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".

Forgive me if I'm feeling lazy, but just finally got indoors and it's colder than a witch's tit out there, and the wind is howling, probably approaching the katabatibc winds of Antarctica. Well, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration. Still, I hope they've got an ample supply of fossil fuels down there.

So my question is, did those clowns at the IPCC ever create a chapter in their magic holy book on solar influences? Last I heard they had not understood the CERN Cloud experiments and their impact.

[gb085]

I think people don't really understand the whole concept of climate change. At first it was about global warming, it didn't work, people didn't understood what that is really about. Then, it was about climate change, not many know what that is also. Something more convincing should be promoted to people in order to make them believe that what the environment suffers from mankind mass destruction is going to affect themselves, their children and the whole world. The problem here is: what about the ones saying: i don't care. we will die anyway. How do we convince those? Maybe with aggressive advertising or real situations.
I saw today a post on Facebook with a polar bear crawling, very skinny, starving, etc. My heart melted. But for those that don't care, how do we make them more emphatic to this matter?

[Coinifyx]

I'm feeling it on my own skin, it's not a matter of belief   it's november but it feels like summer

[TECSHARE]

I think people don't really understand the whole concept of climate change. At first it was about global warming, it didn't work, people didn't understood what that is really about. Then, it was about climate change, not many know what that is also. Something more convincing should be promoted to people in order to make them believe that what the environment suffers from mankind mass destruction is going to affect themselves, their children and the whole world. The problem here is: what about the ones saying: i don't care. we will die anyway. How do we convince those? Maybe with aggressive advertising or real situations.
I saw today a post on Facebook with a polar bear crawling, very skinny, starving, etc. My heart melted. But for those that don't care, how do we make them more emphatic to this matter?

It seems to me that you, like many other who support the anthropogenic global warming theory tend to think more with your emotions than with your logic. Just wanting good things does not guarantee you your path will achieve it. That is what logic is for.

[Spendulus]

I'm feeling it on my own skin, it's not a matter of belief   it's november but it feels like summer

Uh oh....check this out!

https://www.iceagenow.info/lack-of-sunspots-to-bring-record-cold-warns-nasa-scientist/

Lack of sunspots to bring record cold, warns NASA scientist

“The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” wrote Dr Tony Phillips just six weeks ago, on 27 Sep 2018.

Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018 and Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding, says Phillips, editor of spaceweather.com.

Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere.

To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.”

The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed … 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak

[coins4commies]

People are going to be skeptical about anything that requires understanding of multiple scientific principles at work in a dynamic system with many variables.  Traditionally, the uneducated have just called this type of thing "god".  There is no point in debating climate change with people who don't understand the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, geological time, combustion, ocean currents, the effect of salinity on density, or the difference between weather and climate. 

We have people who think the whole earth was once flooded, people who think it is 5000 years old, people who think it is FLAT.  Imagine trying to get those people to understand this when they don't know the basics. 

[TECSHARE]

People are going to be skeptical about anything that requires understanding of multiple scientific principles at work in a dynamic system with many variables.  Traditionally, the uneducated have just called this type of thing "god".  There is no point in debating climate change with people who don't understand the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, geological time, combustion, ocean currents, the effect of salinity on density, or the difference between weather and climate. 

We have people who think the whole earth was once flooded, people who think it is 5000 years old, people who think it is FLAT.  Imagine trying to get those people to understand this when they don't know the basics. 

Could you possibly get any further up your own ass? I am here, I am willing to debate you. So far I have seen ZERO reliable evidence to support the anthropogenic climate change model. Change my mind. Use facts and sourced references.

[coins4commies]

Everything you need is in here
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There are tabs for evidence, causes, effects, vital signs, scientific articles, graphics and multimedia, etc.

[Spendulus]

Everything you need is in here
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There are tabs for evidence, causes, effects, vital signs, scientific articles, graphics and multimedia, etc.

Seems like it would be smart if all climate data was publicly available on a blockchain that was immutable over the long term.

Oh, wait.

That wouldn't work because they are continually changing the numbers and facts.

The Climate Adjustment Bureau....

[coins4commies]

That is just the nature of Science.  New, more accurate data comes in all the time.  Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions. 

[Spendulus]

That is just the nature of Science.  New, more accurate data comes in all the time.  Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions. 

You do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific data must be publicly available, both the raw and adjusted data. The formulas used for adjustments must be available

Then a conclusion made by a scientist can be independently validated.

If the data and methods are secret, this cannot be done.

[coins4commies]

That is just the nature of Science.  New, more accurate data comes in all the time.  Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions. 

You do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific data must be publicly available, both the raw and adjusted data. The formulas used for adjustments must be available

Then a conclusion made by a scientist can be independently validated.

If the data and methods are secret, this cannot be done.

It is all available on the homepage of the site I linked. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/
If you click that link and click on any of the datasets, there is a big "GET DATA" link right below the graph that takes you to a txt file of the raw data. 

These data are made freely available to the public and the
# scientific community in the belief that their wide dissemination
# will lead to greater understanding and new scientific insights.
# The availability of these data does not constitute publication
# of the data. 

[Astargath]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

[bluefirecorp_]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

[TECSHARE]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

And who funds the organizations that pay them?

[bluefirecorp_]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

And who funds the organizations that pay them?

Private citizens, normally through tuitions. Sometimes industry. Sometimes government. Funding from all the different sources, but yet it's a massive conspiracy somehow?

This is the same shitty logic used by flat earthers and moon-landing deniers.

[bones261]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

[TECSHARE]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

[bones261]

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

    Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life?  

Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine."