Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[mOgliE]

"The survey of scientists was conducted online with
a random sample of 2,533 members of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009"

Page 11, your "study" (poll) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

It represents 2533 people. If you have evidence that further supports your assertions present it. Otherwise stop claiming this source supports your assumptions.

xD

*Drops the mic*

[TECSHARE]

"The survey of scientists was conducted online with
a random sample of 2,533 members of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009"

Page 11, your "study" (poll) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

It represents 2533 people. If you have evidence that further supports your assertions present it. Otherwise stop claiming this source supports your assumptions.

xD

*Drops the mic*

Yes you are a joke. 2500 geographically isolated people is an efficient sample size for a global group you say? Sounds good to me. Lets laugh and pretend its obvious you are right and I am wrong rather than attempt a reply. Oh right... you have no reply.

[mOgliE]

I'm just leaving this in case someone might be fooled by something as stupid as considering 2500 scientists as "isolated" which is a complete nonsense as science is ONLY peer to peer. Scientists can't be isolated, that makes no sense.

But just in case:
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

[TECSHARE]

I'm just leaving this in case someone might be fooled by something as stupid as considering 2500 scientists as "isolated" which is a complete nonsense as science is ONLY peer to peer. Scientists can't be isolated, that makes no sense.

But just in case:
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

Yes, isolated. As in isolated to the USA, because they only polled people in the USA. Lets ignore the fact that you totally ignore fundamentals of sources, reading them, or accurately representing them, and get to something more fundamental. Where in this poll is the part that humans are the cause? oh right...


"By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public. Public attitudes about whether global warming represents a serious problem have changed little in recent years."

So if you actually bothered to read your own source, you would see your claims reduced, even further, as 84% argue humans are the cause, not 94%. Additionally science is not a popularity contest.

A poll of scientists is not a substitute for PEER REVIEWED EMPIRICAL DATA of which, you have none, by your own admission.

Google is your friend.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Just relax.  The debate is over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE&feature=youtu.be

King reading comprehension declares the debate over, it must be over!


That's a cool youtube video... and it only took about 10 seconds before I was listening to a late night talk show host. DEBATE CLEARLY OVER!

Your source material: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

A retort:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

[Spendulus]

..... Where in this poll is the part that humans are the cause? oh right...


"By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity.....

Note this kind of clever double talk does not advance any realistic understanding.

For example, a scientist would answer YES if he thought the effect of humans was 0.001C in a hundred years, or YES if he thought the effect of humans was 2.000C in a hundred years.

Essentially, this is lying using a survey, and just another example of the politicalization of science.

[crytonite87]

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

Climate changes, but not because of people.
The climate cycles are repeating and have nothing to do with humans. That CO2 is allegedly bad for the environment, can not be, because plants need CO2 to grow.

[TECSHARE]

..... Where in this poll is the part that humans are the cause? oh right...


"By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity.....

Note this kind of clever double talk does not advance any realistic understanding.

For example, a scientist would answer YES if he thought the effect of humans was 0.001C in a hundred years, or YES if he thought the effect of humans was 2.000C in a hundred years.

Essentially, this is lying using a survey, and just another example of the politicalization of science.

It also ignores the reality that simply funding thousands of sham studies over and over again does not constitute scientific consensus. It constitutes that scientists will say what they are paid to say by the people who fund them. ACTUAL scientific consensus is based on... can we guess what I am going to say next?

EMPIRICAL DATA






Some bonus reading material. http://www.cfact.org/2018/12/30/lets-do-follow-the-climate-money/

[coins4commies]

The article is a criticism of green capitalism which does indeed need to be criticized.  Green capitalists think we can buy and sell our way out of this mess and for the reasons laid out in the article, they are wrong. 

We not only need to shift to renewables but we HAVE to consume a lot less and theres just no way around that.  It can't be shifting the money and consumption somewhere else, but we have to find ways to reduce the consumption.

For example, the green capitalist would say everyone should just trade their gas car for an electric car but I would say we should build livable communities where people can walk instead of needing to drive.  The most environmentally friendly trip is the one that doesn't have to happen in the first place. 

[Spendulus]

....

It also ignores the reality that simply funding thousands of sham studies over and over again does not constitute scientific consensus. It constitutes that scientists will say what they are paid to say by the people who fund them. ....

It's quite common that a scientific article will contain on the first page some type of "statement of faith" regarding climate change.

For example, I recall one that said "The findings are consistent with man-made climate change."

Now that ACTUALLY means anything and everything. The findings may be consistent with 1001 things, but here is mentioned one. Regardless, the authors have done their job, with a secret smirk, and gone ahead with their research.

This article would have been counted in the sham "consensus" but in fact has nothing at all to do with climate change cause or effect.

[ATMD]

....

It also ignores the reality that simply funding thousands of sham studies over and over again does not constitute scientific consensus. It constitutes that scientists will say what they are paid to say by the people who fund them. ....

It's quite common that a scientific article will contain on the first page some type of "statement of faith" regarding climate change.

For example, I recall one that said "The findings are consistent with man-made climate change."

Now that ACTUALLY means anything and everything. The findings may be consistent with 1001 things, but here is mentioned one. Regardless, the authors have done their job, with a secret smirk, and gone ahead with their research.

This article would have been counted in the sham "consensus" but in fact has nothing at all to do with climate change cause or effect.

Science should be based on empirical evidence, facts, and numbers. To have personal agendas from corporations and private organizations skewing the data and making false claims makes it difficult for the rest of us to know what is going on.

[TECSHARE]

The article is a criticism of green capitalism which does indeed need to be criticized.  Green capitalists think we can buy and sell our way out of this mess and for the reasons laid out in the article, they are wrong. 

We not only need to shift to renewables but we HAVE to consume a lot less and theres just no way around that.  It can't be shifting the money and consumption somewhere else, but we have to find ways to reduce the consumption.

For example, the green capitalist would say everyone should just trade their gas car for an electric car but I would say we should build livable communities where people can walk instead of needing to drive.  The most environmentally friendly trip is the one that doesn't have to happen in the first place. 

Capitalism isn't the problem. Consumption is a problem. Consumption is a problem because we are infinitely inflating our money supply to the point that it no longer accurately represents the value of the resources that it was intended to be a token for. Welcome to the hell your pet central bank Socialist inflationary policies have created for us.

Technology is being suppressed. There are many technologies that I know for a fact exist which could solve many if not all of these issues of consumption. The problem is the economy has developed into this easy money casino system where it is all about speed and money velocity as a result of inflation. If there was a less debased money system, the market price discovery mechanism for natural resources would again start representing the ACTUAL COSTS of extracting it from the Earth, including the dwindling supply.

As a result of this existing situation products are designed with planned obsolescence in mind, designed to fail and be re-bought, or be made obsolete by creating the "next generation" of a product. I think more than anything what is needed is a cultural change regarding how we all personally look at our own consumption habits in an objective way, and try to change that, then the cultural change will follow by leading by example.

In summary, technology that could break these old cycles of consumption are purposely being held back because they allow for the elite to keep control over the masses in favor of fake environmental movements that serve them as red herrings, as well as the next generation of ponzi schemes. The same elite which favor your central bank inflationary policies I might add.

[Spendulus]

....

It also ignores the reality that simply funding thousands of sham studies over and over again does not constitute scientific consensus. It constitutes that scientists will say what they are paid to say by the people who fund them. ....

It's quite common that a scientific article will contain on the first page some type of "statement of faith" regarding climate change.

For example, I recall one that said "The findings are consistent with man-made climate change."

Now that ACTUALLY means anything and everything. The findings may be consistent with 1001 things, but here is mentioned one. Regardless, the authors have done their job, with a secret smirk, and gone ahead with their research.

This article would have been counted in the sham "consensus" but in fact has nothing at all to do with climate change cause or effect.

Science should be based on empirical evidence, facts, and numbers. To have personal agendas from corporations and private organizations skewing the data and making false claims makes it difficult for the rest of us to know what is going on.

That's exactly right, although for "climate change", to the list of "corporations and private organizations" we must add governments, political forces, non-profit advocacy groups, and similar things.

To the question of the OP, the ONLY scientific response to any belief system assertion such as those of the "climate change ideology"  is skepticism.

Hello, Lysencho.

[Spendulus]

The article is a criticism of green capitalism which does indeed need to be criticized.  Green capitalists think we can buy and sell our way out of this mess and for the reasons laid out in the article, they are wrong.  

We not only need to shift to renewables but we HAVE to consume a lot less and theres just no way around that.  It can't be shifting the money and consumption somewhere else, but we have to find ways to reduce the consumption.

For example, the green capitalist would say everyone should just trade their gas car for an electric car but I would say we should build livable communities where people can walk instead of needing to drive.  The most environmentally friendly trip is the one that doesn't have to happen in the first place.  

You are ignoring that while it's happening right in front of you. People are ordering far more things online and having them delivered, rather than "going shopping."

My number of trips to places like Home Depot is way, way down compared to 5 years ago.

As for walking instead of driving? Around here there must have been ten thousand Bird electric scooters dropped all over, just grab one and go. That's capitalism at work, letting the users decide if and where they like it. You? You'd just tell them how to live. Here are your very words. (And in the name of Saving the Planet...)

we should build livable communities where people can walk instead of needing to drive.

[Spendulus]

climate change is the thing for fools and parrots of hysteria to worry about.

here's the real thing that's coming. either sooner, or later....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/01/08/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-triggered-a-mile-high-tsunami-across-the-globe/#17a80e246ae5

[BADecker]

climate change is the thing for fools and parrots of hysteria to worry about.

here's the real thing that's coming. either sooner, or later....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/01/08/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-triggered-a-mile-high-tsunami-across-the-globe/#17a80e246ae5

No. Jesus will return and save us first.   

[Oxstone]

Around here there must have been ten thousand Bird electric scooters dropped all over, just grab one and go. That's capitalism at work, letting the users decide if and where they like it. You? You'd just tell them how to live. Here are your very words. (And in the name of Saving the Planet...)

Yeaaaah!

We've replace addiction to petrol by addiction to Lithium! Horay \o/

[Spendulus]

Around here there must have been ten thousand Bird electric scooters dropped all over, just grab one and go. That's capitalism at work, letting the users decide if and where they like it. You? You'd just tell them how to live. Here are your very words. (And in the name of Saving the Planet...)

Yeaaaah!

We've replace addiction to petrol by addiction to Lithium! Horay \o/

But just think. You can still buy a Toyota Hybrid, and have BOTH Evils.

[Sarastiche]

The effect and proof of climate change is obvious for all to see, wondering why people ar still skeptical about climate change.
According to wikipedia it is the  Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. This is real and obvious in our society.

[TECSHARE]

The effect and proof of climate change is obvious for all to see, wondering why people ar still skeptical about climate change.
According to wikipedia it is the  Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. This is real and obvious in our society.

It is really easy to just claim it is obvious. Interesting though, any time people ask for sources there never seems to be any actual empirical data behind it... just models, simulations, and theories.

[Spendulus]

The effect and proof of climate change is obvious for all to see, wondering why people ar still skeptical about climate change.
According to wikipedia it is the  Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. This is real and obvious in our society.

By it's very definition, "Climate" is three successive ten year histories.

So suppose you have these decades. 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000.

Using statistics, you define climate for 1950-1979. You can then discuss "climate change" relating to the period 1960-1989. That's assuming you don't have cooked or slanted data.

By it's very nature, the effect and proof or lack of effect, and lack of proof, is HISTORICAL.

It's not "obvious for all to see." Quite the reverse.

What you are referring to is things like the hot day in August, when the media blitz talks about the "unprecedented heat wave." You are talking about propaganda, pure and simple.