Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 14. (Read 22181 times)

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.

Most skeptical people to climate change are people aware of the real situation. I, for example, do not believe in climate change. I think it is a plan to stop the US from developing its industries. Our car industry will crash if we try to implement European agreements on climate change. I think it is a total hoax. Climate change is just like Nessie, the monster of the lockness. Some people believe in Nessie. We have never seen it. Some people believe in climate change. Have they ever seen it? The rise or fall of temperature is called season, not climate change. Too much politics in this topic.

Wrong. We are currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age.



Wrong again. Ice ages are caused by many separate factors, not just one. Also, the term you are looking for is Milankovitch cycles, not orbital perturbations.



What are you even talking about? "Graphs won't help you"? You realise the graphs are just representations of facts and evidence? Right? Honestly, this is beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, since in your world facts are less valid than your technique of just spouting whatever nonsense you make up, here are some photos instead. Can't wait to hear how somehow these aren't valid either.











What has this got to do with anything? Or is your argument now "it can't possible be getting warmer, because once upon a time it was really cold"?


Honestly, I'm getting bored here. Your argument seems to have degenerated to "throw random somewhat scientific terms at the wall and see what sticks". And are you just ignoring that the one link you did provide actually hurt your case more than helped it? You don't even understand the terms you use or the data you are linking to. The facts on my side are overwhelming - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. If, however, you are going to just keep spouting nonsense and made up assertions, then I'm wasting my time.

Nonsense.
We're overdue for another ice age. That's inevitable, as it is caused by orbital perturbations. Do you have any clue as to how far south the ice sheets will extend?

Why not admit it? You posted something that wasn't true, no more or less.

Graphs won't help you.
Please, no ducking dodging or goal post shifting.
You're again saying things that are grossly inaccurate and misleading. You've failed in hyping alarmism by your claim that Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt, and you know it.

From Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now.[4] This was probably due to a number of factors: reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere.[4] The massive sheets of ice locked away water, lowering the sea level, exposing continental shelves, joining land masses together, and creating extensive coastal plains.[5] During the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, the sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.[6]

Now you've finally got it! Yes, the ice will all melt. No, I don't know when. No, nobody does. It could be in 100 years from global warming, it could be in millions of years with a repeat of the climate seen in the Eocene.



I don't "believe" in global warming anymore than I "believe" in gravity. I understand that global warming is happening because I understand the facts and data. Using language like "believe" is commonly used by the scientific illiterate to create the illusion of controversy where none exists.



Most signature campaigns don't count posts in Politics & Society, so this is just yet more incorrect nonsense.



Excluding results exceeding 5 standard deviations is a perfectly reasonable practice when looking at trends. 5 standard deviations is actually a very generous cut off - 3 standard deviations would be more than sufficient. Regardless, the CRUTEM data also exclude plenty of results that are above average temperature, for example Riyadh, Feb 2002 (5.5 SDs hotter than the mean), Barquisimeto, August 2008 (6.6 SDs hotter than the mean), Diego-Suarez, Nov 2013 (7.8 SDs hotter than the mean). In fact, since 1990, they have excluded approximately 6 times as many data points for being too hot than for being too cold. If you include all the outliers, the trend upwards is even steeper.

The mere fact that you would post some nonsense ramblings  written by a non scientist on his pseudoscientific blog that actually prove my point even more as if that is an appropriate rebuttal to a peer reviewed meta analysis is hilarious. It is clear that neither you nor the author understand the data.

It is also hilarious that you are quite happy to refer to scientific data and when you think the data support your position,* but equally happy to ignore them all when they contradict you.

*They don't.



Correct. Also irrelevant. 10% of the world's land surface area is covered in ice, approximately 15 million km². This is known as land ice. When it melts, its volume is completely added to the sea. As an aside, even sea ice will raise the water level a little when it melts as fresh water is less dense than the salt water.



This is the most ridiculous thing you have posted yet. We are quite literally observing Greenland and Antarctica melting before our eyes.

Classical fear mongering, and not even supported by radical environmentalists.

The North Pole ice is floating, but Greenland is two miles of ice on top of land. Antartica is ice on top of land, with the arguable exception of the western peninsula. Obviously ice on land is not even influenced by warming or changing ocean currents.

Now for the meteorology. Temperatures on Earth go DOWN as you go UP in altitude. About 3C per 1000'. So if you go up 10000 feet, it's much, much colder. Now think about the effect of that in polar regions, where it's already very cold due to little sunlight.

Arguments that Greenland and Antarctica will melt are simply unscientific.

It's because people exist that voted for trump, the entire population can't be logical we have to have some looneys out there to balance it out.

Of course climate change is real anyone that is even a little skeptical about should really go in for a mental evaluation.

With that said there are so many things that can be done today and right now that could offset the climate change it gets me so frustrated with all the corps and politicians just standing in the way being a bunch of fckin NIMBY's (not in my backyard) about anything that will help the planet.

The major point is the cost. Many people are concerned that even if climate change is real and should be paid some attention, is it really worth it? There is also the argument that climate change has always existed. The alarm springs up now because we are only getting to observe it properly. Even if we practice all these measures targeted towards containing climate change, how much of a difference can we make? Governments too are using this topic as a means of carting away with our money. The expenditure mostly does not measure up to the results. Though of course, a clean earth would be of great profit to us all.

I am not sure what that picture is of, perhaps of an ice cap on land. The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

The assertion that all of the world's ice will melt seems like fear mongering to me. 

Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.

But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/

Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....

Still skirting the issue, using lame dodges, and goalpost shifting?

Here is what you said.

Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.

Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when? What facts, if any, do you have to support the wild fantasy that all the ice will melt?

I'm sure you've got some facts, right?

If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause, and may have exaggerated to create a fear and trembling effect. Or alternately, it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have. No big deal. Have a nice day!


Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.

But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/

Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....

Some people are skeptical about climate change because all of them don't have care on our world. That's sad because there is really a few ones who understands climate change scientifically yet some of them were being skeptical. I think this behavior is being selfish as we tend to just think of ourselves, something that we could have benifit. We all should be aware of what is happening in our world because it continues to change positively and negatively.