[POLL] Is bitcointalk (still) very skeptical towards global warming science?

[alani123]

Many times matters pertaining to the environment come up in discussion here in bitcointalk, I remember seeing people that were very much in denial of the very existence of global warming and climate change as phenomena affected by human activity. Don't get me wrong, it's just my experience by reading and posting here ever since I became a member in 2013, but I think that bitcoin users are less environmentally conscious than the average techie.

But have things changed? Have people that were previously in denial perhaps reconsidered their sources? Any minds changed? I'd love to hear these stories.

First of all feel free to answer to the poll. I know that there's no reason to consider a bitcointalk poll representative of anything, but it'd be interesting to see the results nevertheless.
Disclaimer: this thread isn't about pollution. Just to be clear, the poll and thread are about climate change/global warming. While pollution can be related, let's keep the thread focused.

[1714122377]

1714122377

[Charles-Tim]

Global warming is real, the world now know that as it is evident in the rising temperature in the world, many ice bags are melting, this is noticed in Denmark and many regions of the world and it is due to the increase in the heat from the sun that is reaching the earth, the water sea level is yearly increasing. It has also been said that increase in water level in the next 10 years will be more and will be mainly due to global warming.

Three positions on global warming are:

1. That global warming is not occurring and so neither is climate change
2. That global warming and climate change are occurring, but these are natural, cyclic events unrelated to human activity
3. That global warming is occurring as a result primarily of human activity and so climate change is also the result of human activity

But, if we can reason with the scientists, we will believe that global warming is mainly due to human activities because carbon particles and many other green house gases have been linked to it, it makes the sun heat to penetrate more into the earth.

The green house gases are
CO2 or carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide in parean (laughing gas)
Fluorinated gases
Sulphur hexafluoride

These gases including black carbon can be responsible for global warming, that is why they should not be too much in the atmosphere but there should be some natural produced ones like CO2 to certain extent so that the world will not become too cold in a way sun will not be able to penetrate certain amount of heat also. So, the concetraction of the green house gasses are to certain level. If low, it will result to cold earth and if too much, it will lead to warm earth (global warming). But out of all, scientists link CO2 more to global warming.

The trees breath in CO2 in a way it takes up carbon, but in the world of today, trees are reducing due to several human activities, this decrease the amount of CO2 intake by tress. Humans also increase, and we breath out CO2, and contribute to the atmospheric carbon. Also there many ways CO2 and those green houses gasses listed above are produced by human activities, leading to global warming.





From the above graph, you will noticed how carbon emitted into the atmosphere as been increasing drastically which is linked to human activities.

Specifically, gases released primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the tiny particles produced by incomplete burning trap the sun’s energy in the atmosphere. Scientists call these gases “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) because they act like the wrong way reflective glass in our global greenhouse. Scientists call the tiny particles ‘black carbon’ (you call it soot or smoke) and attribute their warming effect to the fact that the resulting layer of black particles in the lower atmosphere absorbs heat like a black blanket.

Scientists date the beginning of the current warming trend to the end of the 18th or beginning of the 19th century when coal first came into common use. This warming trend has accelerated as we have increased our use of fossil fuels to include gasoline, diesel, kerosene and natural gas, as well as the petrochemicals (plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) we now make from oil.

Scientists attribute the current warming trend to the use of fossil fuels because using them releases into the atmosphere stores of carbon that were sequestered (buried) millions of years ago. The addition of this “old” carbon to the world’s current stock of carbon, scientists have concluded, is what is heating our earth which causes global warming.

We people in the world should be able to regulate the green house gases in a constant state in a way it will not be less or too much so that we can maintain certain amount of heat emitted by the sun that will penetrate into the earth.



https://warmheartworldwide.org/climate-change/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1qL6BRCmARIsADV9Jtab3-PqpH49u3InIbSMHXp9juFPyJ_NTqmv5MCBGC9K6NF456NWek8aAkuOEALw_wcB

[tvbcof]

I don't remember there every being a strong recognition of the fraudulent nature of the current implementation of the Club-of-Rome's climate scam even back in the earlier day when some of the main threads were more active.  But it seems that the current cohort of bitcointalk.org users are pretty much as likely as the average Joe to fall for whatever globalist-generated 'scienctism scam' is being pushed that day.  Maybe even more-so.

The education systems seems to have successfully pushed the narrative that 'science' means repeating whatever the (often falsely reported) 'consensus' view is according to the mainstream media.  The messaging is that if you believe what the media says scientists say, you are sort of a 'smart'(tm) junior scientist yourself.  Give yourself a social credit bonus!  If you don't, you are an anti-science person...who probably believes in Christianity or some anti-science shit.  Science and spirituality are compatible if and only if the spirituality is kabbalah-based and the church (if there is one) is registered correctly tax-wise.

What passes for 'science' vis-a-vis the climate these days is a LITTERAL doomsday cult replete with high priests, sacrifices, self-destructive rituals, etc.  It is kind of funny, if ominous, to watch.  For now,  But the cult is swelling daily, and more and more it is impacting us non-believers in tangible ways.

[c_atlas]

I don't really see a difference between these 2 options

• I'm skeptical of some related claims.
• I agree with most claims related.

If your poll is sorted in order of non-believer to believer, these options should probably be swapped. I would say the "agree with most" option indicates you flat out disagree with certain claims, whereas the "skeptical of some" option indicates you mostly believe in the problem but are suspicious of some aspects of it.

I chose the skeptic option because I think there are problems in how the climate issue has been politicized. We're presented with 2 options: you either believe in man-made climate change or you don't. Other issues include interpretation of data, issues with predictive models, and the absurdity of proposed solutions.

Given our current understanding of atmospheric science, as well as the recorded measurements of GHG concentration in the atmosphere over time (and the significant increase after the industrial revolution), it's pretty reasonable to conclude that human activity is increasing the concentration of CO2 and other GHG's. If the warming potential of CO2 and Methane are accurate, along with their suspected 'airbourne lifetimes' and if the assumed rate at which we emit these gases into the atmosphere is sustained, the climate of the planet will certainly change, and there will be a significant increase in the global average surface temperature (GAST).

With that in mind, I don't think the issue is as alarming as many environmental activists/organizations and the left wing media make it out to be. I also think there are a lot of balancing mechanisms that we don't properly understand yet, for example, the case of the missing heat. I also think it's sketchy for universities, NGOs, and non-profits to collect billions of dollars from the government every year to pump out new climate science which turns out to be wrong every 10 years, or ends up being the same old green energy + (carbon tax)/(cap and trade) will save us all narrative. It pays to keep people scared, if the environmentalists really wanted to solve the problem they'd be funding advertising campaigns to reverse the damage they did to public perception of nuclear energy, which is the cleanest and safest energy per TWh.

I'm not even necessarily against carbon taxes/cap and trade, I've looked into this quite a bit and it seems it would get the job done. The thing is, depending on where you live, it may be in your best interest for global warming to occur, so coupling that with the misinformation campagins on carbon taxes make them almost impossible to sell to voters.

The climate problem is just unrealistically massive, there's no way any one country will be able to solve it. Even if the US stopped all emissions, China and India will continue and their emissions will likely rise as well. Australian politicians have shown they don't care about how other countries look at them in terms of their climate policy and will continue to invest in coal power (as they're a massive exporter of coal and LNG). All Canada has managed to do is ruin would be prosperous oil and LNG pipeline deals and ban plastic straws, even though Canadian agricultural yields are projected to increase with GAST.

There's no "Montreal Protocol" for climate change because climate change isn't like the Ozone Layer problem. Hole in the Ozone layer = everyone gets skin cancer. Increase in GAST = more 'nice days' in currently cold climates. More droughts in currently hot climates. More dangerous oceanic events along coastlines.... in 80+ years (seriously, it's not like people will be 'displaced', you adapt or you move when you're gifted timelines like that). The problem affects everyone differently, maybe you can get Karen from Florida to stop driving her SUV through Miami in the summer, but can you get an Albertan to turn off their heating and stop driving their Ford F150 in the middle of a Canadian winter so that their great-great grandkids can go to the Maldives over Christmas break in 150 years?

[Charles-Tim]

The climate problem is just unrealistically massive, there's no way any one country will be able to solve it. Even if the US stopped all emissions, China and India will continue and their emissions will likely rise as well. Australian politicians have shown they don't care about how other countries look at them in terms of their climate policy and will continue to invest in coal power (as they're a massive exporter of coal and LNG). All Canada has managed to do is ruin would be prosperous oil and LNG pipeline deals and ban plastic straws, even though Canadian agricultural yields are projected to increase with GAST.

You get points and facts why global warming may still continue and difficult to reduce. In modern days, the world is even depending more on activities that increasing green houses gasses that can add to global warming. How about deforestation which is the major reasons that too much carbon can also be trapped in the atmosphere. The rate at which the world is tackling deforestation and encouraging afforestation is poor. The world governments need to cooperate in a way more trees are planted. And also if there are ways they can reduce green house gasses to certain required level, it will be helpful.

[Twinkledoe]

The climate problem is just unrealistically massive, there's no way any one country will be able to solve it. Even if the US stopped all emissions, China and India will continue and their emissions will likely rise as well. Australian politicians have shown they don't care about how other countries look at them in terms of their climate policy and will continue to invest in coal power (as they're a massive exporter of coal and LNG). All Canada has managed to do is ruin would be prosperous oil and LNG pipeline deals and ban plastic straws, even though Canadian agricultural yields are projected to increase with GAST.

You get points and facts why global warming may still continue and difficult to reduce. In modern days, the world is even depending more on activities that increasing green houses gasses that can add to global warming. How about deforestation which is the major reasons that too much carbon can also be trapped in the atmosphere. The rate at which the world is tackling deforestation and encouraging afforestation is poor. The world governments need to cooperate in a way more trees are planted. And also if there are ways they can reduce green house gasses to certain required level, it will be helpful.

Right now, thinking of activities that will address the global warming is very overwhelming and seems too much for ordinary people like us.  But there's a lot of ways to help in small ways as much as we can such as -

1. Lessen the use of plastics, i.e. use reusable cups whenever you go to coffee shops, avoid single-use plastics like shampoo in sachets
2. Recycle materials that you can found at home (use plastic bottles for plants)
2. Tend your own garden and plant as much as possible in your land
3. Use bike as much as you can, or drive less
4. Or in summary, practice 5 R's at your home: refuse, reduce, reuse, rot, recycle achieving zero waste as much as you can

[eddie13]

Huge believer in pollution, non-believer in mad made global warming..

I believe some claims but think it’s mostly a hoax.. Voted hoax..

[Cnut237]

Climate change is real, and is caused by man. The evidence is overwhelming. I think most people (and many forum members) do believe this, it's just that the evidence is so overwhelming, that relatively few bother to engage with climate-skeptics. Similar to how relatively few people try to argue with anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers. The question has been settled. Those who can't see the evidence or disagree with it will never be convinced by data, empirical evidence, facts. The thing that I find strange is that they view whatever crap the fossil-fuel lobbyists come out with as unbiased and impartial.

There is close to a universal consensus amongst climate scientists - 97% agree that humans have caused recent global warming.

For those who don't want to look at the data, or prefer extremely selective evidence that confirms their own viewpoint, then the EDF has a simple nine point summary of how we know that humans are the cause:

- Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
- Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
- Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
- Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
- Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
- Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
- Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
- Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
- Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

[Spendulus]

I don't really see a difference between these 2 options

• I'm skeptical of some related claims.
• I agree with most claims related.

If your poll is sorted in order of non-believer to believer, these options should probably be swapped. I would say the "agree with most" option indicates you flat out disagree with certain claims, whereas the "skeptical of some" option indicates you mostly believe in the problem but are suspicious of some aspects of it.

I chose the skeptic option because I think there are problems in how the climate issue has been politicized. We're presented with 2 options: you either believe in man-made climate change or you don't. Other issues include interpretation of data, issues with predictive models, and the absurdity of proposed solutions....

A propagandist does not need to be clear thinking.

[c_atlas]

The thing that I find strange is that they view whatever crap the fossil-fuel lobbyists come out with as unbiased and impartial.
....
There is close to a universal consensus amongst climate scientists - 97% agree that humans have caused recent global warming.

I wish people stopped using this argument. You can't say group A has majority consensus that it's not happening, so they're idiots, then say group B has majority consensus that it is happening, so it must be true. It doesn't matter if one group has more 'quallification' if both groups have a massive interest in being right. It's obvious what the fossil fuel industry's interest is in prolonging the switch to clean energy alternatives, you can argue it makes them less credible. However, you could also argue that the entire field of climate science benefits from overstating the problem because it gives them astronomical budgets and makes them the darling of the liberal media.

Scientists can be wrong, models can be wrong, data can be misinterpreted. University pedigree is irrelevant, look at Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford Biologist who predicted multiple famine/overpopulation related doomsday events that never occured. Yet seemingly each time he was wrong he only brought more people onboard to his school of thought, including many serious scientists.

Pushing a pop-sci x% of <insert authoritative group> believes y narrative is called dogmatism, not science. Unfortunately the damage is done and now we have to deal with Dunning-Kruger effect on both sides of the problem. I don't expect most people to be familiar with actual climate science, but here's some interesting info from my own experience. I've taken a handful of environmental studies (not science) classes at my university so I knew quite a few people who should be at least familiar with the basic science. From what I saw, I would confidently say that if you picked a student at random from any of those classes and asked them to list 5 GHGs and "which GHG has a higher warming potential, CO2 or Methane", there's a < 10% chance they would be able to answer correctly. What hope does a random "CO2 induced climate change" believer have in answering a simple question like that?

Considering how polarizing this issue is and how little the average person actually knows, I think the distribution of believers to non-believers is actually pretty reasonable.

[Spendulus]

....I would confidently say that if you picked a student at random from any of those classes and asked them to list 5 GHGs and "which GHG has a higher warming potential, CO2 or Methane", there's a < 10% chance they would be able to answer correctly. What hope does a random "CO2 induced climate change" believer have in answering a simple question like that?...

That's not even considering the relation between concentration of such a gas and logrythmic decrease in additional warming.

But the narrative must be pushed, the truth is quite irrelevant.

Surprisingly, I heard (but have not verified) the US Democratic Party now includes nuclear power in their platform.

[Cnut237]

I wish people stopped using this argument. You can't say group A has majority consensus that it's not happening, so they're idiots, then say group B has majority consensus that it is happening, so it must be true.

I'm not saying that. The consensus is that it is happening. There is no consensus that it's not happening. Certainly some of the 3% of scientists who believe it's not happening are idiots; others simply say whatever they're paid to say. The 'scientists' who are saying that either there is no climate change, or else there is but it's not caused by human activity... are exactly the same type of 'expert' who thought (or said they thought) a few decades back that there was no link between smoking and cancer.

Scientists can be wrong, models can be wrong, data can be misinterpreted. University pedigree is irrelevant, look at Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford Biologist who predicted multiple famine/overpopulation related doomsday events that never occured. Yet seemingly each time he was wrong he only brought more people onboard to his school of thought, including many serious scientists.

I think you're undermining your own argument here. 97% indicates a huge weight of numbers. Whatever your viewpoint, you will be able to find a single scientist who supports it. You are unlikely to find a 97% consensus unless your viewpoint is in alignment with the actual underlying facts.

Pushing a pop-sci x% of <insert authoritative group> believes y narrative is called dogmatism, not science.

Put it this way, you have severe stomach pain and you phone the doctor. He is at a conference of 100 stomach specialists, and he puts you on speaker. 97 of the 100 specialists say that you've ingested poison and you need to go to the hospital immediately, the other 3 say don't worry, it's nothing. What would you do? I'll be extremely generous and assume the 3 are not employees of the poison company.

I would confidently say that if you picked a student at random from any of those classes and asked them to list 5 GHGs and "which GHG has a higher warming potential, CO2 or Methane", there's a < 10% chance they would be able to answer correctly.

I would suggest trusting experts rather than random students. Students aren't experts, that's why they're students. You can certainly argue that some experts are biased, but it stretches credibility rather a lot to suggest that 97% of experts in a given field are deliberately lying in order that they might become "darlings of the liberal media".

I heard (but have not verified) the US Democratic Party now includes nuclear power in their platform.

Nuclear power is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels... but reactors take a very long time to build. Given the pace of climate change, we probably don't have time for that, and need to switch our attention to renewables instead, as well as lifestyle changes. The ultimate dream I suppose is commercial fusion, but that is always a few decades away...

[c_atlas]

I wish people stopped using this argument. You can't say group A has majority consensus that it's not happening, so they're idiots, then say group B has majority consensus that it is happening, so it must be true.

I'm not saying that. The consensus is that it is happening. There is no consensus that it's not happening. Certainly some of the 3% of scientists who believe it's not happening are idiots; others simply say whatever they're paid to say. The 'scientists' who are saying that either there is no climate change, or else there is but it's not caused by human activity... are exactly the same type of 'expert' who thought (or said they thought) a few decades back that there was no link between smoking and cancer.

I know the consensus is that it's happening, I agree with that consensus. I just have an issue with using the fact that "97% of climate scientists agree" as an argument because it gives people a reason to not look at the facts. Why should they put any effort into understanding the problem when there's such overwhelming consensus? The wisdom of crowds dissipates quickly if everyone 'thinks' the same way.

I honestly think things like this push ordinary people further away from the actual science. I don't think we should be trying to scare people away from pursuing alternative theories. I think it's wrong to label people as 'climate-deniers' or idiots if they don't accept the consensus, unless of course they simply reject our accepted theories with no evidence or alternative theories to challenge them. If someone rejects the consensus and is both willing and able to test the science on their own, I think they should be encouraged rather than bashed for going against the crowd. If they're wrong, they'll be proven wrong. If they're right, we update what we know and we're all better for it.

I would confidently say that if you picked a student at random from any of those classes and asked them to list 5 GHGs and "which GHG has a higher warming potential, CO2 or Methane", there's a < 10% chance they would be able to answer correctly.

I would suggest trusting experts rather than random students. Students aren't experts, that's why they're students. You can certainly argue that some experts are biased, but it stretches credibility rather a lot to suggest that 97% of experts in a given field are deliberately lying in order that they might become "darlings of the liberal media".

Right, except this isn't about the professionals, this is about people's understanding of what the professionals have discovered. My argument is that there's a disconnect between the scientists and the people. This should be clear because in a random sample of experts you'll have overwhelming consensus on most climate issues, but in a random pool of ordinary citizens you're likely to find that no one know's what they're actually talking about (on either side of the debate), which is not good. People need to form their opinions based on the evidence, if you tell them that all climate scientists agree this is a problem and you're stupid if you think otherwise, not only will scientists not challenge it (they'd probably be defunded and ridiculed), but non-experts will use it as an excuse to stay ignorant of the professionals findings.

Hope that cleared some stuff up. Also sorry for putting you in the spotlight, I agree with a lot of your previous post I just wanted to point out that 1 bit because conformity always comes with tradeoffs.

[Spendulus]

....
Nuclear power is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels... but reactors take a very long time to build. Given the pace of climate change, we probably don't have time for that, and need to switch our attention to renewables instead, as well as lifestyle changes. The ultimate dream I suppose is commercial fusion, but that is always a few decades away...

Reactors take a long time to build?

No, they do not.

[tvbcof]

...
Nuclear power is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels... but reactors take a very long time to build. Given the pace of climate change, we probably don't have time for that, and need to switch our attention to renewables instead, as well as lifestyle changes.

Yup.  Hand FULL control of all aspects of your life over to the oligarchs who thought up the 'global warming' idea as part of an excuse to install the technocracy they'd been funding into existence:

   “The common enemy of humanity is man.
   In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
   with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
   water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
   dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
   changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
   The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“  – Club of Rome,

The ultimate dream I suppose is commercial fusion, but that is always a few decades away...

'Fusion' has been 'a few decades away' for the pretty much all of the 50 years of my life where I understood spoken language.  I've suspected for a long time that it's been accomplished, or at least that the path do accomplishment is well understood and simply in a holding pattern, for quite a long time.  It would be highly 'disruptive' to say the least.

The central characteristic of a technocracy as envisioned by those doing the early work pre-WWII involved a monetary system denominated in  energy units and a surveillance system powerful enough to track 'spending' with precision at an individual level.  The Covid-19 hoax is mostly about emplacing the elements of such a system (both physical and psychological) at a frantic pace, and making the cut-over under what they are now referring to as the 'global reset.'

[Spendulus]

...
Nuclear power is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels... but reactors take a very long time to build. Given the pace of climate change, we probably don't have time for that, and need to switch our attention to renewables instead, as well as lifestyle changes.

Yup.  Hand FULL control of all aspects of your life over to the oligarchs who thought up the 'global warming' idea as part of an excuse to install the technocracy they'd been funding into existence:

   “The common enemy of humanity is man.
   In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
   with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
   water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
   dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
   changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
   The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“  – Club of Rome,

The ultimate dream I suppose is commercial fusion, but that is always a few decades away...

'Fusion' has been 'a few decades away' ....

Climate catastrophe has ALSO been a "few decades away..."

It's true there has been propaganda on the idealized vision of fusion power, but the reality such as the tokamak reactor test systems isn't so wonderful or great at all.

There's nothing wrong with various fission reactors and they make solar or wind farms look like a joke as far as energy production.

[squatz1]

Climate change is real, and is caused by man. The evidence is overwhelming. I think most people (and many forum members) do believe this, it's just that the evidence is so overwhelming, that relatively few bother to engage with climate-skeptics. Similar to how relatively few people try to argue with anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers. The question has been settled. Those who can't see the evidence or disagree with it will never be convinced by data, empirical evidence, facts. The thing that I find strange is that they view whatever crap the fossil-fuel lobbyists come out with as unbiased and impartial.

There is close to a universal consensus amongst climate scientists - 97% agree that humans have caused recent global warming.

For those who don't want to look at the data, or prefer extremely selective evidence that confirms their own viewpoint, then the EDF has a simple nine point summary of how we know that humans are the cause:

- Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
- Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
- Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
- Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
- Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
- Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
- Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
- Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
- Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

+1 to a lot of this. People don't engage with climate skeptics b/c of the sheer amount of data they'd have to provide to refute their points. It's just not something that people want to do when they can quickly just say -- the EARTH IS ROUND AND VACCINES DONT GIVE YOU AUTISM.

I personally am not sure, at this point, if we'd be able to walk back some of the issues relating to pollution by instantly changing now -- but I do think it is important to note that all of this is happening.

Not sure how crazy society would have to change to bring us to no more warming too.

[Cnut237]

I know the consensus is that it's happening, I agree with that consensus. I just have an issue with using the fact that "97% of climate scientists agree" as an argument because it gives people a reason to not look at the facts. Why should they put any effort into understanding the problem when there's such overwhelming consensus? The wisdom of crowds dissipates quickly if everyone 'thinks' the same way.

I take your point, but I would argue that if everyone looked at facts, then we'd have 100% consensus. If a person's opinion is in wild divergence from the evidence, then I'd suggest that they started by forming a conclusion, and then sought (extremely selective) evidence to back up that conclusion... which isn't science.

I think it's wrong to label people as 'climate-deniers' or idiots if they don't accept the consensus, unless of course they simply reject our accepted theories with no evidence or alternative theories to challenge them. If someone rejects the consensus and is both willing and able to test the science on their own, I think they should be encouraged rather than bashed for going against the crowd. If they're wrong, they'll be proven wrong.

Yes, they have been proven wrong. It shouldn't be a contentious issue, it's very similar to the smoking-doesn't-cause-cancer argument I mentioned. It doesn't matter to them that they've been proven wrong, because their arguments are not based on facts, because they started from a conclusion and worked backwards. This is also why a lot of people believe in the literal truth of the bible. Facts from this viewpoint are an irrelevance. It's faith, not logic, there is no real consideration of empirical evidence. This is why you'll never be able to use facts to change the opinion of a climate change denier.

My argument is that there's a disconnect between the scientists and the people. This should be clear because in a random sample of experts you'll have overwhelming consensus on most climate issues, but in a random pool of ordinary citizens you're likely to find that no one know's what they're actually talking about (on either side of the debate), which is not good. People need to form their opinions based on the evidence

Yes, there is a disconnect. This is due to the mechanism by which people receive information. Partly social media confirmation bias bubbles; partly TV new trying to be 'impartial' by having one expert from each side (which gives the erroneous impression that the scientific opinion is split 50/50). But mostly because news channels (on whatever medium) are owned and controlled by extremely rich people, who tend to represent the interests of extremely rich people, which are threatened by any disruption to the status quo.

....
Nuclear power is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels... but reactors take a very long time to build. Given the pace of climate change, we probably don't have time for that, and need to switch our attention to renewables instead, as well as lifestyle changes. The ultimate dream I suppose is commercial fusion, but that is always a few decades away...

Reactors take a long time to build?

No, they do not.

Okay, start building one now, and post here again when you're done. Photo or it didn't happen.

I appreciate this could all be done somewhat more quickly if the political will and expertise was there, Japan for example has a history of building them quite quickly, but other countries face pushback due to environmental concerns, and may lack the Japanese expertise and experience. If we are talking about all nations switching to nuclear to avert climate catastrophe, then it's not going to happen. You're not going to get a fission reactor built in sub-Saharan Africa in a couple of years. It's not the rapid solution that we need right now.

[tvbcof]

... People don't engage with climate skeptics b/c of the sheer amount of data they'd have to provide to refute their points. It's just not something that people want to do when they can quickly just say -- the EARTH IS ROUND AND VACCINES DONT GIVE YOU AUTISM.
...

That's intellectually very lazy at best.  More generally it is a tool custom-made for people who are both lazy and lacking the mental prowess to learn enough about a subject to actually discuss it.  Nobody I know who questions the mainstream narrative on either the 'global climate change' issue or the 'vaccination' issue believes that the earth is flat.

As a matter of fact, someone who puts any 'information' about flat-earth forward is highly suspect to me.  It's a pretty good marker for an individual who is basically participating in a psychological operation of some sort and is to be analyzed as such and obviously not to be trusted.  It is true that there are some weak minded people who probably do fall for the flat-earth psy-op, but I don's see much cross-over between them and the 'climate deniers' or 'anti-vax' crowd both of who are often vastly more knowledgeable about both science and medicine generally then though counterparts, and of a nature who are not averse to challenging authority and orthodoxy.

Back in the day it did seem that bitcointalk.org (formerly 'bitcoin.org forum' a decade ago) were prone to be the type who would challenge orthodoxy and mainstream dogma.  Now, sadly, it seems that the cadre is drawn from a more normie type pool if not skewed toward the pool who are indoctrinated by mainstream scientism more than your average bear.  It seems like a lot of the 'old-timers' who were of the more interesting type moved on.  Presumably to enjoy their new-found life  as multi-millionaires.

[Spendulus]

....
Okay, start building one now, and post here again when you're done. Photo or it didn't happen.

I appreciate this could all be done somewhat more quickly if the political will ....

Operatives of the Democratic Party are funded to stall, litigate and prevent reactors being built and put into use.

Nothing could be simpler than this issue.

So now you are saying "They can't be built because my people are preventing them from being built."