Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[mOgliE]

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right?

And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright?

[1715557467]

1715557467

[1715557467]

1715557467

[1715557467]

1715557467

[TECSHARE]

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right?

And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright?

You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.

[Spendulus]

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
......

Solar storms and asteroid impacts are the threats we should be concerned about. Both are going to happen, it's just a matter of when.

Climate change is nothing compared to these threats.

...That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult.....

There is virtually no acceptable viewpoint in science except skepticism.

[Spendulus]

Just a thought:
Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

I'm glad that you solemnly state "The scientists find..."
"The new research shows..."

But animals are tasty and we like eating them.

[mOgliE]

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right?

And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright?

You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.

Euh... Sorry? I give you an infographic giving both CO2 evolution and temperature evolution, both showing an exceptionnal increase since industrial revolution... How is that the begining of a cult?? What you accept an evidence when you see a phenomenon with both eyes otherwise it's just "unsubstantiated claimes"??

There is virtually no acceptable viewpoint in science except skepticism.

That's perfectly right in theoretical science but there comes a time when you have to apply science to real world and then you have to accept reasonnable reasults. Otherwise you never do anything because nothing is 100% certain in science.

[Spendulus]

....

There is virtually no acceptable viewpoint in science except skepticism.

That's perfectly right in theoretical science but there comes a time when you have to apply science to real world and then you have to accept reasonnable reasults. Otherwise you never do anything because nothing is 100% certain in science.

Really.

Skepticism is 100% required when looking at the often-ridiculous, often-insanely expensive and ineffective, often-proposed "solutions" to climate change.

Many of which on examination, are not a solution at all.

Other propose cutting 0.001C for a couple trillion dollars in cost.

Skepticism is the right attitude.

As previously noted, solar storms and asteroid impacts present far deadlier risks than climate change. Please don't just fall in line with what vested money interests told you to be concerned about.

[TECSHARE]

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right?

And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright?

You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.

Euh... Sorry? I give you an infographic giving both CO2 evolution and temperature evolution, both showing an exceptionnal increase since industrial revolution... How is that the begining of a cult?? What you accept an evidence when you see a phenomenon with both eyes otherwise it's just "unsubstantiated claimes"??

There is virtually no acceptable viewpoint in science except skepticism.

That's perfectly right in theoretical science but there comes a time when you have to apply science to real world and then you have to accept reasonnable reasults. Otherwise you never do anything because nothing is 100% certain in science.

It is the start of a cult because you just expect we accept your ideology without proof. This is appeal to popularity/appeal to authority. Also, the little fact that correlation does not equal causation, and the several leaks revealing the manipulated numbers.

[mOgliE]

It is the start of a cult because you just expect we accept your ideology without proof. This is appeal to popularity/appeal to authority. Also, the little fact that correlation does not equal causation, and the several leaks revealing the manipulated numbers.

Don't have to answer to that. You're just asking for the impossible.

You want a 100% proof, that doesn't exist. Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. If that's not enough for you I'm very sorry to tell you you're not able to think in a logical way.

Scientific methodology means:
-Having hypothesis
-Testing those hypothesis
-Being able to explain the results of the test and be assured they're coherent with the hypothesis
-Assume you're right until you're proven wrong because that will happen one day without any doubt

[Spendulus]

.... Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. ....

What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.

[bluefirecorp_]

.... Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. ....

What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.

Nah, we have like a billionity data points that back the evidence.

[BADecker]

Climate change, if you are talking about what the simple words mean, is something that happens around the world all the time in most places. But when you take the words and turn them into a phrase that describes global warming, you are mixed up.


Global Cooling is Real – Major Temperature Low 2046?

While NASA has now confirmed that the outer atmosphere is getting cooler, it seems desperately insane for people to keep denying the possibility the Global Cooling is taking place rather than Global Warming when the former brings famine and the latter brings economic expansion as civilizations rise. The rise of Rome was due to global warming as was the case after the Dark Age when they call that the Medieval Warming Period which was 950 to 1300AD.

The concern from just a technical model perspective is that the warming period we have had post-1600 and the low of the Little Ice Age has not exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period. If we simply look at this chart from a technical perspective, it appears more that we are in a grand downtrend for the past 6,000 years. This is deeply concerning for we tend to have these periods where civilization turns downward. It would be very nice if we just had authoritative research funded to explore Global Cooling to save society rather than this nonsense of Global Warming just to raise money for politicians who NEVER get enough.

Here it comes. The beginnings of the next ice age.

[Spendulus]

.... Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. ....

What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.

Nah, we have like a billionity data points that back the evidence.

haha. That's really sciency. Truthy, too.

But if the "prediction from the scientists" is a temperature rise of 1.5-4.5 for a doubling of the CO2, then the spread of the variance itself shows the weak correlation.

[TECSHARE]

It is the start of a cult because you just expect we accept your ideology without proof. This is appeal to popularity/appeal to authority. Also, the little fact that correlation does not equal causation, and the several leaks revealing the manipulated numbers.

Don't have to answer to that. You're just asking for the impossible.

You want a 100% proof, that doesn't exist. Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. If that's not enough for you I'm very sorry to tell you you're not able to think in a logical way.

Scientific methodology means:
-Having hypothesis
-Testing those hypothesis
-Being able to explain the results of the test and be assured they're coherent with the hypothesis
-Assume you're right until you're proven wrong because that will happen one day without any doubt

Yeah actually, if you expect to have any scientific credibility, you are REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR PREMISE WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. 100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?

You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.

[mOgliE]

Yeah actually, if you expect to have any scientific credibility, you are REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR PREMISE WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. 100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?

You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.

And the curves I gave are not empirical data because?

[TECSHARE]

Yeah actually, if you expect to have any scientific credibility, you are REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR PREMISE WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. 100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?

You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.

And the curves I gave are not empirical data because?

Because it in no way demonstrates humans are the cause, this is simply an assumption on your part.

[mOgliE]

Because it in no way demonstrates humans are the cause, this is simply an assumption on your part.

Are you serious? Of course it's an assumption!!! The only way to absolutely prove this assumption would be either to create a parralel world identical to ours but without humans and compare the outcomes, or to be able to track down every single molecule of CO2 existing in this world to see how the human intervention influences it!!!

You're asking something completely impossible and this is in no way a scientific way of thinking.

Here a bit of culture for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Occam's razor is an old but still completely reliable principle saying that the most simple explanation tends to be the correct one. That's actually how you do empirical science because you can NEVER control all the parameters of a complexe system.

So when you see a curve like this: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You ask yourself "Hey it's strange, in 400 thousands of years at least the level of CO2 has change in very long period of times always in a rather cyclic way, and just after 1900 the level went completely crazy and nearly doubled in just 100 years while previous cycle were nowhere this high and took thousands of years to change by a few%. What could possibly the cause of this increase in CO2?"

And then you think a bit about it and ask yourself again "what has radically changed in the last 100 years compared to the last 400 thousand years? Oh my, could it be human activity?" and you think a bit more and considering we KNOW human activities emit about 30 gigatons of CO2, which is of course only about 5% of the natural emissions, you reach the conclusion that humans can definitely be the reason of this increase if nature is not able to absorb a 5% additionnal emission that happens in just 100 years of times.

Then you think jsut a tiny bit more and you wonder "are there other possible explanations to this increase?" and as long as you haven't found something as simple as "we produce 5 % additionnal CO2 in an environment which is an equilibrium, hence the rise of CO2 level" or an experiment proving this assumption wrong you can consider it is a correct assumption.


Damn just go to school kid... You need it.

[mOgliE]

What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.

Yes and?

Weak correlations are perfectly acceptable in complex and chaotic systems, strong/weak correlations is an important difference because strong correlations tends to prove while weak correlations tend to give an hint.

But again, the most simple explanation (provided it's a logical one) must be taken as the truth until we either prove it wrong or find an even more simple explanation. That's basically how science progresses. You make assumptions, prove they're logical, show how they explain or solve a problem, and it's considered truth until we have a counter example or a better one.

[Spendulus]

What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.

Yes and?

Weak correlations are perfectly acceptable in complex and chaotic systems, strong/weak correlations is an important difference because strong correlations tends to prove while weak correlations tend to give an hint.

But again, the most simple explanation (provided it's a logical one) must be taken as the truth until we either prove it wrong or find an even more simple explanation. That's basically how science progresses. You make assumptions, prove they're logical, show how they explain or solve a problem, and it's considered truth until we have a counter example or a better one.

And I simply correct the assertion made that it was a strong correlation, duh...Odd how many of these basic errors are made over and over by believers in climate change, isn't it? Almost as if they were taught things that were wrong.  Oh, I forgot, they are being taught things that are wrong. Like this case at hand of "strong correlation."

Unrelated, you don't have a correct explanation or a correct use of Occam's Razor, but regardless, numerous anti-razors come to mind. Bolded is my favorite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razor

Anti-razors[edit]
Occam's razor has met some opposition from people who have considered it too extreme or rash. Walter Chatton (c. 1290–1343) was a contemporary of William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) who took exception to Occam's razor and Ockham's use of it. In response he devised his own anti-razor: "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on." Although there have been a number of philosophers who have formulated similar anti-razors since Chatton's time, no one anti-razor has perpetuated in as much notability as Chatton's anti-razor, although this could be the case of the Late Renaissance Italian motto of unknown attribution Se non è vero, è ben trovato ("Even if it is not true, it is well conceived") when referred to a particularly artful explanation.
Anti-razors have also been created by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), and Karl Menger (1902–1985). Leibniz's version took the form of a principle of plenitude, as Arthur Lovejoy has called it: the idea being that God created the most varied and populous of possible worlds. Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam's razor and thus created his own counter-razor: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."[73]
Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables, so he formulated his Law Against Miserliness, which took one of two forms: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more." A less serious but (some[who?] might say) even more extremist anti-razor is 'Pataphysics, the "science of imaginary solutions" developed by Alfred Jarry (1873–1907). Perhaps the ultimate in anti-reductionism, "'Pataphysics seeks no less than to view each event in the universe as completely unique, subject to no laws but its own." Variations on this theme were subsequently explored by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges in his story/mock-essay "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius". There is also Crabtree's Bludgeon, which cynically states that "[n]o set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."

[cool4y]

Just a thought:
Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

As far as I know, the production of beef contributes the most to the pollution and climate change due to the fact that in order to feed and grow a cow a lot resources are being utilized . Giving away on burgers alone would make a great impact.

[Spendulus]

Just a thought:
Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

Just a thought? How about your quotes and numbers are not true?

Look at the item I bolded. It's a lie. I might buy it in terms of tonnage but not numbers of creatures. There are A LOT of small mammals.