Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[bluefirecorp_]

You don't know a damned thing about science.

I don't know any science? Fuck off with that shit you dumb cunt. I'm formally educated with a scientific degree. What fucking qualifications do you have you? ...

The method of scientific inquiry, formulation of proper hypothesis, critical review of methods and results. The kind of thinking that results in findings which are true and accurate?

Alright guy; you refused to look at the evidence that I presented after stating "no evidence". You didn't refute the existing evidence and you cannot deny the evidence exists. You shoved your head in the sand. That's the reason people are skeptical about climate change because they REFUSE to see the evidence.

[St_3179]

Shifting a bit away from the argument that is going on here...

If anyone notices Trump happily asked yesterday on his Twitter "Whatever happened to global warming?" because there is record cold in many parts in the US for thanksgiving... so a short article for anyone who might feel the same way that how can we still have cold weather while there's so much talk about global warming.
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-that-freezing-winter-doesn-t-mean-we-can-ignore-global-warming

[haitranvan1998]

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

People are skeptical just because they are less knowledgeable about climate change, science, and they do not believe they are real, they only live in reality but they do not think about the future.

[mOgliE]

It's indeed a bit strange to see people believing there is no climate change when 99% of scientific agrees on its existence.

But it's a little more complicated to link it to human activities. It's quite easy to show a correlation of course but... Well some people will tell you that correlation isn't cause-effect. And they would be right.

Technically I don't think we have really "proven" that climate change is vastly due to human activities at 100%. We still have tons of indirect proofs and clues but nothing 10% solid.

Nevertheless I still believe it's completely stupid to not take into account that there is a HUGE POSSIBILITY that climate change is entirely man-made and so that we should be extremely cautious about that. Cause after all:
-If we're wrong and planet can completely handle it and everything goes fine well it won't hurt to be cautious about the environment
-If we're right and planet can't take it well it would be necessary to be cautious about environment.

[Spendulus]

It's indeed a bit strange to see people believing there is no climate change when 99% of scientific agrees on its existence.

But it's a little more complicated to link it to human activities. It's quite easy to show a correlation of course but... Well some people will tell you that correlation isn't cause-effect. And they would be right.

Technically I don't think we have really "proven" that climate change is vastly due to human activities at 100%. We still have tons of indirect proofs and clues but nothing 10% solid....

You make some good points.

But why is it that every time some religious style Warmer blurts out ...

"It's Settled Science!"

... I have to restrain myself from bursting out laughing?

The more so, the more they look serious and stern when they pontificate their truths. truthies.

[mOgliE]

You make some good points.

But why is it that every time some religious style Warmer blurts out something like... "It's Settled Science!"

... I have to restrain myself from bursting out laughing?

Because sadly tons of people don't exactly know what they're talking about. Media and people report what actual scientists do and say in a too simple way. Hence most people are sure that climate change is 100% acted 100% understood and 100% linked to human activity even though scientists are the first one to admit climate is one of the most complex and chaotic structure so all we're going to reach are plausible assumption, theories and corelations.

And because you just LOVE being the devil's advocate 

[Spendulus]

You make some good points.

But why is it that every time some religious style Warmer blurts out something like... "It's Settled Science!"

... I have to restrain myself from bursting out laughing?

Because sadly tons of people don't exactly know what they're talking about. Media and people report what actual scientists do and say in a too simple way. Hence most people are sure that climate change is 100% acted 100% understood and 100% linked to human activity even though scientists are the first one to admit climate is one of the most complex and chaotic structure so all we're going to reach are plausible assumption, theories and corelations.

And because you just LOVE being the devil's advocate 

Yes, that's true.

And chaos remains the exact opposite of fixed belief.

[coins4commies]

Just because its not "settled science" (there is none), doesn't mean you shouldn't start to act on it.  If you are dying in the hospital and your doctors recommend a new drug, you don't really have the luxury of waiting until there is 100% proof that it works.  Listen to the experts.  

The most unrealistic of aspect of that analogy is that there is no drug that would also have a completely positive affect on your health regardless of you having the targeted disease or not.


We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   The wild suggested brought up earlier (nuking the sky, painting everything white) are not serious solutions being considered by governments.  

[bones261]

Just because its not "settled science" (there is none), doesn't mean you shouldn't start to act on it.  If you are dying in the hospital and your doctors recommend a new drug, you don't really have the luxury of waiting until there is 100% proof that it works.  Listen to the experts.  

The most unrealistic of aspect of that analogy is that there is no drug that would also have a completely positive affect on your health regardless of you having the targeted disease or not.


We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   The wild suggested brought up earlier (nuking the sky, painting everything white) are not serious solutions being considered by governments.  

I agree that it is best to err on the side of caution. However, it ought not be used as a springboard for the government to implement burdensome taxes and draconian, pricey regulations. Always remember that when a corporation has to pay hefty taxes or put up with hefty regulations, they either pass the extra cost along to the consumer or move there operations to a country that is more lenient. In the end, the working class gets the shaft, again. Why do you think many disaffected democrats in the rust belt flipped from blue to red and voted for Trump? A promise to raise the minimum wage to 12.50 an hour really doesn't sink in well with someone who used to get paid 20+ an hour with their good union job.

[TECSHARE]

''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.

Let's start off by reducing the population that denies climate change.

Ahahaha, then the rest of us can actually take care of the problem without morons like him holding the rest of society back.

So now you are advocating the genocide of anyone who does not share your ideology?

You don't know a damned thing about science.

I don't know any science? Fuck off with that shit you dumb cunt. I'm formally educated with a scientific degree. What fucking qualifications do you have you? Fucking internet troll degrees?

Alright guy; you refused to look at the evidence that I presented after stating "no evidence". You didn't refute the existing evidence and you cannot deny the evidence exists. You shoved your head in the sand. That's the reason people are skeptical about climate change because they REFUSE to see the evidence.

WHAT EVIDENCE?! Anything even remotely resembling evidence I have already addressed. If you think otherwise please do quote this mysterious unnamed evidence. FYI, just because you have a degree does not make you smart or educated. Frankly I would doubt the veracity of that statement since you think the world runs on movie physics. I have refuted anything you have presented and I am denying any solid empirical data supporting the anthropogenic climate change theory. So far all you have done is tell me it is settled, irrefutable, and I am simply ignoring it even when I have repeatedly directly addressed your every argument.

[Spendulus]

....
We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   ...

That makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, wait, you claimed it so it must be true. Really?

What evidence is there that "Mitigating climate change would improve society?"

....
...The wild suggested brought up earlier (nuking the sky, painting everything white) are not serious solutions being considered by governments.  

Actually, there are a great many totally wacko concepts that have been seriously suggested and studied.

Again, this is a statement you have completely fabricated to attempt to make everything look san and reasonable.

[coins4commies]

....
We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   ...

That makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, wait, you claimed it so it must be true. Really?

What evidence is there that "Mitigating climate change would improve society?"

1. Stop eating meat and become healthier

High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2540540

2. Stop burning fossil fuels and become healthier

The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked with breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, cancer, premature death, and a host of other serious problems. The pollution affects everyone: one Harvard University study estimated the life cycle costs and public health effects of coal to be an estimated $74.6 billion every year. That’s equivalent to 4.36 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced—about one-third of the average electricity rate for a typical US home [6].

Renewable sources don't produce this pollution. 

3. Make better use of water resources
-Most renewables do no require water either.  Freshwater is an issue and electricity currently competes with agriculture and municipalities for freshwater use. 

4. Incentivized sustainability-
Higher energy costs will make us think more about wasting energy thus wasting resources whose cost is linked to energy costs.  More people might decide to live near work instead of commuting.  Less waiting in traffic=less time wasted=more economic productivity. 

[Spendulus]

....
We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong.  Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever.   ...

That makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, wait, you claimed it so it must be true. Really?

What evidence is there that "Mitigating climate change would improve society?"

1. Stop eating meat and become healthier

High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2540540

2. Stop burning fossil fuels and become healthier

The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked with breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, cancer, premature death, and a host of other serious problems. The pollution affects everyone: one Harvard University study estimated the life cycle costs and public health effects of coal to be an estimated $74.6 billion every year. That’s equivalent to 4.36 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced—about one-third of the average electricity rate for a typical US home [6].

Renewable sources don't produce this pollution. 

3. Make better use of water resources
-Most renewables do no require water either.  Freshwater is an issue and electricity currently competes with agriculture and municipalities for freshwater use. 

4. Incentivized sustainability-
Higher energy costs will make us think more about wasting energy thus wasting resources whose cost is linked to energy costs.  More people might decide to live near work instead of commuting.  Less waiting in traffic=less time wasted=more economic productivity. 

These all range from outright lies, to exaggerations or one-sided vegetarian arguments, which ignore facts and studies to the contrary.

1. There are no "benefits" from stopping eating meat.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-vegetarians-live-longer-than-meat-eaters/

2. Outright lie. There isn't any "air or water pollution" from natural-gas fired power plants.

3. Freshwater isn't an issue.

4. There are no "benefits" from higher energy costs. You are using circular logic here. Start with the idea that climate change is bad, then you conclude higher energy costs are good. But that doesn't get you to go back and say that higher energy costs are good even if there is no climate change.

Unless suffering of poor people is to you considered a "benefit."

You've presented nothing that substantiates your argument that "Mitigating climate change is good even if there is no climate change," but that's expected because if one spends time and money pursuing a non problem, that time and money is wasted.

[Alexandra Abramova]

To my mind, people don‘t see what they don’t want to see. It is convenient to to point out such problems as climat change, because if they did, they would need to find a solution, which can be inappropriate to them!

[Spendulus]

To my mind, people don‘t see what they don’t want to see. It is convenient to to point out such problems as climat change, because if they did, they would need to find a solution, which can be inappropriate to them!

That's one outcome of people "not seeing what they don't want to see."

Another outcome of that is "they would need to find a solution, and so they would generate numerous ill thought out idiocies, and shout that they should be implemented"

[Astargath]

It's indeed a bit strange to see people believing there is no climate change when 99% of scientific agrees on its existence.

But it's a little more complicated to link it to human activities. It's quite easy to show a correlation of course but... Well some people will tell you that correlation isn't cause-effect. And they would be right.

Technically I don't think we have really "proven" that climate change is vastly due to human activities at 100%. We still have tons of indirect proofs and clues but nothing 10% solid....

You make some good points.

But why is it that every time some religious style Warmer blurts out ...

"It's Settled Science!"

... I have to restrain myself from bursting out laughing?

The more so, the more they look serious and stern when they pontificate their truths. truthies.

Aren't you the guy who is 100% sure climate change has nothing to do with humans? A bit ironic, don't you think?

[Spendulus]

....
Aren't you the guy who is 100% sure climate change has nothing to do with humans? A bit ironic, don't you think?

Nobody who has experienced the smog of Beijing would say that. You may be thinking of someone else.

In fact, any such statement as 100% sure this or that would be anti-scientific.

Oh, wait. We hear that kind of thing all the time from religious believers in the end of the world being near due to human-induced climate change.

[mOgliE]

Actually, there are a great many totally wacko concepts that have been seriously suggested and studied.

Again, this is a statement you have completely fabricated to attempt to make everything look san and reasonable.

And they all have been completely rejected by any scientist not paid by big oil corporations ^^

Actually if I remember well it's only 2 scientists who are responsible for 90% of geoengineering articles published in the last 10 years. The two main theories (spreading nano particles in the sky to reflect incoming solar rays or injecting iron in the oceans to make planctons grow faster and absorb more CO2) are non viable and dellusional.

Unless there is a serious scientific revolution climate engineering is and will stay a dream.

[Spendulus]

Actually, there are a great many totally wacko concepts that have been seriously suggested and studied.

Again, this is a statement you have completely fabricated to attempt to make everything look san and reasonable.

And they all have been completely rejected by any scientist not paid by big oil corporations ^^

Actually if I remember well it's only 2 scientists who are responsible for 90% of geoengineering articles published in the last 10 years. The two main theories (spreading nano particles in the sky to reflect incoming solar rays or injecting iron in the oceans to make planctons grow faster and absorb more CO2) are non viable and dellusional.

Unless there is a serious scientific revolution climate engineering is and will stay a dream.

No, there are many other geo-engineering ideas that have been floated. But my comments were not narrowly focused on geo-engineering.

They were addressing wacko ideas about climate change, and for every geo-engineering crazy scheme, there are a hundred or a thousand.

Painting roads and rooftops white is an obvious one.

Promoting electric cars running off coal power plants is another.

Promoting and pushing / forcing use of compact fluorescent bulbs when it was already obvious LED would dominate is yet another.

Want more?

[BADecker]

Global warming isn't anything when compared to this...


U.K. govt. agency warning that coming massive space storms will wipe out modern society by killing all electronics

The Met Office in the United Kingdom is warning that massive solar storms that occur on an average of about once every 100 years are coming and that, without adequate warning, they could wipe out most technology on earth, hurling much of the world back to the 18th century.

The country’s national weather service says Britain could be “crippled by huge electrical disturbances caused by storms in space unless a satellite network is built that can detect them coming,” The Sunday Times reported last week.

Naturally, the U.K. would not be the only country affected. Such massive solar storms would also wreak havoc on technology the world over, having the greatest negative impact on the most technologically advanced countries.

“We find that for a one-in-100-year event, with no space weather forecasting capability, the gross domestic product loss to the United Kingdom could be as high as £15.9bn (about $20.4 billion),” The Met Office study said.

...

Grid-down scenario would mean the end of civilized life