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

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 04:01:55 PM

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Colorado is definitely cashing in on pot revenues.

Also the government is "Satan." Every time that I have to go visit the DMV, I am reminded of this. Thank goodness that I can deal with most government business over the mail or internet these days.

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

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

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.

Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems, provide energy independence, make energy available in places that do not have access to infrastructure like roads for tankers and power plants. (solar panels and wind turbines), no more reliance on fuel prices.

Big advantages in human health as DALYs caused by air pollution would be mostly eliminated. Cities would be more livable which would encourage more walking and hanging out in green spaces (better quality of life from time spent in green spaces).

The increase in green spaces and decrease in deforestation would reduce ecological harm.

Cutting back on livestock production would force people to eat a healthier diet absent of red meat. You would see heart disease risk diminish.

Public transportation and mass transit availability would increase access and economic opportunities bringing people and ideas closer together.

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2018, 03:56:56 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 03:33:58 PM

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.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 03:33:58 PM

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.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: Astargath on November 15, 2018, 03:33:58 PM

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

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.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

Well, I think the thrust in thinking of many conservative people is it is just another way for the government to increase their revenues through taxes and penalties. Then that money is wasted in the inefficient bureaucracy of the federal government. Furthermore, when deciding what to do with the extra revenue, we can expect lots of pork to crop up.

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

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.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: coins4commies on November 15, 2018, 12:58:53 PM

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.

I'm well aware of where the data sets are maintained. Here is an explanation of the problem.

Neither I or anyone else should be expected to accept data unless the raw data is available and can be validated, and the adjustments explained which take it to the "adjusted value."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

Separately, as an example of the problem, here is a recent case where a warming study showed large amounts of heat in the oceans that had previously not been known. Big headlines, everyone saw them. And independent researcher found a problem with their math and notified them. They fixed it and announced their errors.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/07/global-warming-study-oceans-error/

That's the way it SHOULD work. But there are many cases with climate research where it does not...

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....

Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 10. (Read 22197 times)