Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? (Read 22113 times)

“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

    The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.

    “The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

    The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.

    If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?

    All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.

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.

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.

Yeaaaah!

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

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...)

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

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.  

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.

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. 

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.

....

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. ....

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.

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

..... 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.....

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

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

Sigh... its sad that so many lazy and or ignorant people demand to be spoon fed all the time rather than actually taking the time to analyze really simple stuff. I promise using your brain stops hurting after a while once you get used to it.

He is claiming that his source represents a GLOBAL consensus among scientists, which is not at all what his source says. His source is a POLL of a small portion of ONLY AMERICAN scientists, but not like any of you take the time to read your own sources right?

Yes, we are done here.