Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 10.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: bones261 on November 15, 2018, 02:18:23 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2018, 02:05:40 PM

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life? Cheesy

Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine."

There is a big difference between natural market forces and government mandated restriction. I have no problem with THE MARKET deciding oil is not worth it any more, but we aren't there yet. Also they have predicted peak oil how many times by now? No it is not unlimited, but there will be availability for the foreseeable future in spite of the naysayers.

We use electricity for running hospitals, infrastructure for food and water, etc. If these global warming standards are implemented there WILL be energy shortages, brown outs, and black outs. Additionally developing nations will continue to be held down by these regulations the industrialized world MIGHT be able to cope with, while they will not.

You are claiming that these regulations are equivalent to everyone driving around hybrid cars. Frankly that is a gross oversimplification bordering on being disingenuous. These regulations will have REAL COSTS.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2018, 02:05:40 PM

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented thoroughly throughout this thread.

Raw data has been presented after you discarded the information compiled by the data.

The data has been sourced from multiple different independent agencies, and institutions.

I don't think there's anything in this world that'll ever convince you of man made climate change.

Pretty much, all climate change deniers have this issue; they refuse to accept the science without justifiable cause or reason.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2018, 02:05:40 PM

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life? Cheesy

Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine."

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: bones261 on November 15, 2018, 01:59:14 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 01:25:20 PM

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 01:25:20 PM

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2018, 01:55:53 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 15, 2018, 01:43:30 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 01:25:20 PM

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

And who funds the organizations that pay them?

Private citizens, normally through tuitions. Sometimes industry. Sometimes government. Funding from all the different sources, but yet it's a massive conspiracy somehow?

This is the same shitty logic used by flat earthers and moon-landing deniers.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 15, 2018, 01:43:30 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 01:25:20 PM

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

And who funds the organizations that pay them?

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 01:25:20 PM

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it.

The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change.

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

Quote from: Spendulus on November 15, 2018, 10:53:45 AM

Quote from: coins4commies on November 15, 2018, 10:49:35 AM

That is just the nature of Science. New, more accurate data comes in all the time. Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific data must be publicly available, both the raw and adjusted data. The formulas used for adjustments must be available

Then a conclusion made by a scientist can be independently validated.

If the data and methods are secret, this cannot be done.

It is all available on the homepage of the site I linked.

https://climate.nasa.gov/
If you click that link and click on any of the datasets, there is a big "GET DATA" link right below the graph that takes you to a txt file of the raw data.

Quote

These data are made freely available to the public and the
# scientific community in the belief that their wide dissemination
# will lead to greater understanding and new scientific insights.
# The availability of these data does not constitute publication
# of the data.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: coins4commies on November 15, 2018, 10:49:35 AM

That is just the nature of Science. New, more accurate data comes in all the time. Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific data must be publicly available, both the raw and adjusted data. The formulas used for adjustments must be available

Then a conclusion made by a scientist can be independently validated.

If the data and methods are secret, this cannot be done.

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

That is just the nature of Science. New, more accurate data comes in all the time. Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: coins4commies on November 15, 2018, 10:08:33 AM

Everything you need is in here
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There are tabs for evidence, causes, effects, vital signs, scientific articles, graphics and multimedia, etc.

Seems like it would be smart if all climate data was publicly available on a blockchain that was immutable over the long term.

Oh, wait.

That wouldn't work because they are continually changing the numbers and facts.

The Climate Adjustment Bureau....

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

Everything you need is in here
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There are tabs for evidence, causes, effects, vital signs, scientific articles, graphics and multimedia, etc.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: coins4commies on November 15, 2018, 12:27:04 AM

People are going to be skeptical about anything that requires understanding of multiple scientific principles at work in a dynamic system with many variables. Traditionally, the uneducated have just called this type of thing "god". There is no point in debating climate change with people who don't understand the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, geological time, combustion, ocean currents, the effect of salinity on density, or the difference between weather and climate.

We have people who think the whole earth was once flooded, people who think it is 5000 years old, people who think it is FLAT. Imagine trying to get those people to understand this when they don't know the basics.

Could you possibly get any further up your own ass? I am here, I am willing to debate you. So far I have seen ZERO reliable evidence to support the anthropogenic climate change model. Change my mind. Use facts and sourced references.

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

People are going to be skeptical about anything that requires understanding of multiple scientific principles at work in a dynamic system with many variables. Traditionally, the uneducated have just called this type of thing "god". There is no point in debating climate change with people who don't understand the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, geological time, combustion, ocean currents, the effect of salinity on density, or the difference between weather and climate.

We have people who think the whole earth was once flooded, people who think it is 5000 years old, people who think it is FLAT. Imagine trying to get those people to understand this when they don't know the basics.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Coinifyx on November 13, 2018, 07:07:12 PM

I'm feeling it on my own skin, it's not a matter of belief Angry

it's november but it feels like summer

Uh oh....check this out!

https://www.iceagenow.info/lack-of-sunspots-to-bring-record-cold-warns-nasa-scientist/

Lack of sunspots to bring record cold, warns NASA scientist

“The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” wrote Dr Tony Phillips just six weeks ago, on 27 Sep 2018.

Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018 and Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding, says Phillips, editor of spaceweather.com.

Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere.

To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.”

The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed … 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: gb085 on November 13, 2018, 06:19:38 PM

I think people don't really understand the whole concept of climate change. At first it was about global warming, it didn't work, people didn't understood what that is really about. Then, it was about climate change, not many know what that is also. Something more convincing should be promoted to people in order to make them believe that what the environment suffers from mankind mass destruction is going to affect themselves, their children and the whole world. The problem here is: what about the ones saying: i don't care. we will die anyway. How do we convince those? Maybe with aggressive advertising or real situations.
I saw today a post on Facebook with a polar bear crawling, very skinny, starving, etc. My heart melted. But for those that don't care, how do we make them more emphatic to this matter?

It seems to me that you, like many other who support the anthropogenic global warming theory tend to think more with your emotions than with your logic. Just wanting good things does not guarantee you your path will achieve it. That is what logic is for.

Coinifyx

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 10

Personal Text

I'm feeling it on my own skin, it's not a matter of belief Angry

it's november but it feels like summer

gb085

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

I think people don't really understand the whole concept of climate change. At first it was about global warming, it didn't work, people didn't understood what that is really about. Then, it was about climate change, not many know what that is also. Something more convincing should be promoted to people in order to make them believe that what the environment suffers from mankind mass destruction is going to affect themselves, their children and the whole world. The problem here is: what about the ones saying: i don't care. we will die anyway. How do we convince those? Maybe with aggressive advertising or real situations.
I saw today a post on Facebook with a polar bear crawling, very skinny, starving, etc. My heart melted. But for those that don't care, how do we make them more emphatic to this matter?

Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 10. (Read 22215 times)