Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 13. (Read 22218 times)

Yes, the weather right now is totally normal.

It's not getting worse every year.

I understand there's considerable propaganda with every extreme weather even to shape public opinion, but try to get past that.

Because there are people that believes that whatever is going on in our environment right now is just a normal occurrence, not knowing that every year, the weather is getting worst. And then, it will be too late when they finally realized that they've been wrong all along and the planet is actually about to go down in flames.

To stay on topic as a general rule with regards to any form of information or skepticism.... "fact" is something an majority have agreed upon and hence from that day they call it an fact.... we call the grass green because we reached an consensus on the usage and interpretation of both the words "grass" and the word "green". Coming back to your question of  "why"... it's simple.... It's harder to defend than to attack facts in general and especially on global warming where the data is interpretable in many ways to the highest bidder for a mouthpiece P.H.D. degree for both organisations/goverments/companies etc at both sides whether it's a bio-hippy or the oil-junky. Long story short....It's a fight between who is better in convincing and the "facts" are secondary as long the objective is reached...which is convince you of the existence or myth of global warming.

Tell me, what "proof" was that exactly? Please quote. I carefully reviewed all your posts and I saw no proof of anthropogenic climate change.

I presented proof, you refuse to accept it.

You're too dumb to understand the proof. But hey, no matter what evidence I present, you'll still stick your head in the sand like the buffoon you are.

How about YOU go research it since YOU are making the claim, and the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU. Or, you know just pretend I am uneducated and play it off like I am just too dumb to look it up, not that you don't have any clue what you are even talking about. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything if you can't explain it yourself?

Go research each of the studies in that picture. Find the scientists that posted their research on climate change. Bam! There's your empirical data, or at least the methodologies on how the data was analyzed to get the information.

But nah, just gonna troll bitcointalk a bit more, aren't ya? Silly uneducated baboon.

That's interesting. There sure are a lot of people with opinions. Very impressive.

Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

The problem is the non-scientists 'rebuking' the notion. The science community overwhelming believes one way.



Also:

People are skeptical about climate change because it's something they can't see happening in real time. The same goes for things like evolution. Because you can't show them it actually happening via a video or in some other digestible format they often just discredit it or write it off as a conspiracy. With that being said, I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I'm not entirely convinced it's 100% due to man made issues either. Then again, I'm not a scientist.


Like this guy for a perfect example. A lot of people always look for the conspiracy and who it benefits, even without evidence themselves.

You have no facts.

I'm bringing this topic back to the topic. People need to see you get shutdown repetitively with scientific arguments.

You really seem to be a state sponsored troll at this point.

It may be because they do not care about the environment as much as those who are concerned and it may also be because they are not currently affected by it. People still go on with their day to day lives, just thinking about the present. News about climate change may have reached them, but I guess never acknowledged it. Maybe they’ll realize this when it’s too late. So for us who care, I suggest we do our part.

Now you are falsely attributing comments to me, which is obviously against the forum rules. "Baseless opinions and no facts" is what YOU SAID, not I.

Why would deceit further your cause?

It is the problem, not the solution.

After all, a proud dispenser of FACTS must be truthful, or he has no facts.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Until you post a single piece of evidence, I'm done wasting my time constantly refuting your made up drivel.

You don't have "a case", except in your own delusional thinking, in which you are the Factboy, possessor of all correct facts, and others are either wrong or praise your keen insight.

This is another tired attempt to reframe an argument and misdirect. (e.g.. I'll say it again - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side,...)

FROM: "All the ice will melt" and "An ice age is coming"

TO: the boring, trivial mantra of "Man's CO2 emissions will cause the planet to burn up!"

But I have news for you. Clark's comment about GGE is not inconsistent with his paper's thesis, methods or conclusions. It's not the subject of his investigation.

It's irrelevant to it, and you are just trying to shift the goal posts of the discussion.

What unprecedented storm activity? Climate is defined as weather over a minimum of three successive ten year periods. If you have seen some stormy weather that has pretty much zero relevance to climate averages.

Just to clarify there is nothing tiny about the amount of pollution humans are responsible for.

A glaring example would be "Great Pacific garbage patch"

---

I'll admit I am significantly less active on the environmental front that I was even 5 years ago. Don't get me wrong I still actively do what I can to reduce my impact as it's something I find value in doing.

The reason I feel most people I will meet through my lifetime can easily dismiss climate change is due to our life expectancy. They are banking on the fact that they will not be here to deal with the negative outcomes. Though arguably the increase in unprecedented storm activity is being linked as an early indicator that things are changing.

Glad to see you've finally changed your mind, since the source you just used for your argument also says this:



You are now two out of two for trying to provide evidence and ending up strengthening my case and weakening your own. You apparently are just Googling for random things that you think support your case, which you don't even read before posting, let alone understand.

I'll say it again - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. Continuing to post your unsupported and provably incorrect opinions is getting embarrassing for you.

If you have the opportunity to talk with real scientists and researchers in related subjects,  you will find a far different viewpoint than that of internet  opinionators.

The primary domain of anti-scientific and anti-logical attitudes and mindsets reaching the public today is "climate change."

I have to admit I'm still on the fence of climate change. I don't think the tiny amount of pollution by humans really has an everlasting effect on our atmosphere.

You are wasting your time spamming with climate porn.

I'll stick with "orbital perturbations," of which Milankovitch cycles are a subcategory. Let's check our friend Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 The term is named for Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic patterns on Earth.
[/quote]


Since the Quaternary Ice Age is defined as a period when some ice sheets existed throughout, notably those of Antarctica, isn't this a bit in conflict with your prior claim that "All the ice is going to melt!" I think if you just answer "Sometime...." it is a refutation of any causative link between man's carbon emissions and the melting of all the ice.

For all practical purposes, we're in an Ice Age when half of North America is covered by glaciers. If you want to nit pick and shout about "Interglacial periods of the Quad..." go at it. If you want to state it as "we're overdue for the end of the current interglacial period" that's fine. Playing with the words does not change the facts.

The facts are that we are headed for a much colder global climate.

Here's your facts.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141512.htm

Long Debate Ended Over Cause, Demise Of Ice Ages? Research Into Earth's Wobble
Date:
August 7, 2009
Source:
Oregon State University
Summary:
Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years -- they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth's rotation and axis.

... the known wobbles in Earth's rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.

...The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.

....Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it.