Pages:
Author

Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 15. (Read 22179 times)

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

I really don't know how many times I have to explain this. I never claimed this, and I made no mention of the IPCC. You made this up and then attacked it. That's called a strawman.

My point is that there is enough ice to raise sea levels by 70 meters. That's a fact. Whether it all melts in a hundred years or a million years, I don't know, nobody knows, and I never claimed otherwise.

Please continue to ignore the proven 99.999% link between human activity and global warming and the >5 sigma change in the CO2 level that I linked to earlier. I appreciate that it's difficult to refute such overwhelming evidence, especially with zero facts of your own.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
Since you're the FACTBOY, I've simply asked you to show where, in the generally accepted set of facts and current science, the IPCC reports, there is any mention of "ALL THE ICE MELTING."

Once again, I never said that and never mentioned the IPCC. You are attacking an argument I did not make. That's the literal definition of a strawman.

FROM WIKIPEDIA.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I am only asking for authoritative facts on a wild assertion you made. I have not made a straw man argument, that's ridiculous. I only point out that authoritative and reputable peer reviewed science en mass refutes your argument.

But perhaps you have better facts than the IPCC.

Are you going to share them with us? I'm certain a lot of people would like to know if there is going to be a 70 meter sea level rise, which was "one of your facts."
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
Since you're the FACTBOY, I've simply asked you to show where, in the generally accepted set of facts and current science, the IPCC reports, there is any mention of "ALL THE ICE MELTING."

Once again, I never said that and never mentioned the IPCC. You are attacking an argument I did not make. That's the literal definition of a strawman.

Nice move to ignore the actual facts, figures and studies I've presented and instead to attempt to argue over the semantics of language. It's a classic loser's tactic.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

.....
Yes, temperature changes in the Northern Pacific fluctuate with the PDO. However, the global trend of warming continues despite this.

Misframing the answer to the argument. Classical propaganda technique where the answer is an answer to A DIFFERENT QUESTION - namely the question you wanted to ask with the answer you wanted. You're wasting peoples' time there, fact boy.



When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters......I'm the one providing evidence and facts...

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Please provide a direct quote for where I ever mentioned the IPCC. Nice strawman, though.

It's not a straw man, rather the IPCC reports are is the generally accepted set of facts and current science on climate change, periodically revised. Apparently you don't even know what a straw man argument is, but you can go look that fact up.

Since you're the FACTBOY, I've simply asked you to show where, in the generally accepted set of facts and current science, the IPCC reports, there is any mention of "ALL THE ICE MELTING."

I'm sure you've got some facts to support that wild bit of nonsense, 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!
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Calling someone "factboy" as an insult is a damning indictment of your own intelligence: "Look at this guy caring about facts and the truth! What a loser! I don't care about facts. I only use baseless opinions."

Yes, temperature changes in the Northern Pacific fluctuate with the PDO. However, the global trend of warming continues despite this.


What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Please provide a direct quote for where I ever mentioned the IPCC. Nice strawman, though.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

It's actually closer to 9%. 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......I'm the one providing evidence and facts...

When it all melts?

What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?

Asserting that is scientific opinion is an outright lie.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Obviously attributing climate to a natural cycle doesn't fit the desired narratives.

That's another great example of an opinion. And now here are the facts:



Bah. You can't even read a sentence and understand it.

Let's try again, factboy (actually a simple propagandist).

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

It's actually closer to 9%. 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.




Unfortunately, anyone who even questions the conclusion of global warming is shouted down, so there is little to no debate within the scientific community on the matter.

I have done zero shouting down. I'm the one providing evidence and facts for my position. You're the one refusing to read or respond to them. If anyone is ignoring the other side here, it's you.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

Skepticism revolves around the kind of climate change. Simple climate change is all around us all the time. Even equatorial jungles have climate change when it rains and when it doesn't.

Global warming and global cooling has been going on in cycles for a long time. The idea that we can do much of anything about climate change is what skeptics are all about.

Cool
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374

history has shown us that both humans and the world will survive.

The human race will survive, sure. But when sea levels rise, the land becomes too barren to farm and there is global famine and drought, billions will die.
I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

I have not (and will not) reviewed that study, however it is one study, and there are other ways to evaluate what data is relevant and draw conclusions. Unfortunately, anyone who even questions the conclusion of global warming is shouted down, so there is little to no debate within the scientific community on the matter.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
the change over the last two generations is little more than a statistical anomaly.

This is provably incorrect.

It has been calculated that there is a >99.999% probability that the global temperature rise "is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere".




Atmospheric CO2 has stayed within 2 standard deviations of the mean for the last 800,000 years at least. In the last 100 years, we have catapulted the levels up to over 5 standard deviations away from the mean. That means there is a less than 0.0000001% chance that this is a "statistical anomaly".



history has shown us that both humans and the world will survive.

The human race will survive, sure. But when sea levels rise, the land becomes too barren to farm and there is global famine and drought, billions will die.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
This is in no small part because those who believe in global warming refuse to debate those who want more information. Anyone who does not blindly support the global warming theory is shouted down, and in the case of Exxon recently, called a criminal.

The fact is that temperature measurements from more than 50 or so years ago is horribly imprecise, and the change over the last two generations is little more than a statistical anomaly.

Further, the global warming theory fails to account for the ice age, and the subsequent thawing. The world is subject to a cycle of temperature changes. Modern technology may or may not be accelerating this cycle, however history has shown us that both humans and the world will survive.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Obviously attributing climate to a natural cycle doesn't fit the desired narratives.

That's another great example of an opinion. And now here are the facts:

legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

Well if you mention what proof it is easier to answer Smiley and I think they mainly doubt why things change not that the change they see is real.

The main problem is that the climate always change over long periods of time, so there is always something to blame. We have gone from hot climate to ice age and back so many times, it might not be a problem many could arguee.

Can you really prove that the amount of dimming vs the amount of heat absorption is heating us, that no natural causes is to blame(sun etc)?

The next thing comes down to simple psychology, human brains do very bad with change, especially for the worse, and we rather blame nature then accept being part of said change.
We also must come to realization of the situation, something that requires humans to read up on it and focus on it, which they most likely won´t. If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

Good luck!

I find that climate cycles are something that are not talked about enough. I certainly don't think that what humans are doing has no effect on the environment, but we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle. Another thing that bugs me is that in popular media sometimes so much responsibility is put on the end consumer, average people. If all the people in the world stop letting their vehicles idle when they aren't driving and start using reusable bags at the grocery store, it will still be a drop in the ocean compared to the effects industry and agriculture have on the environment. Talk about climate change is often a political stunt or an ad campaign. The issue is so complex. If everybody changes their light bulbs to some more environmentally-friendly ones, that may be a good thing, but you also have to take into account that a new factory had to be create to produce all those light bulbs. I've heard similar things about electric cars. Sure, it's great that electric cars don't burn fuel, but whats potential damage do the production and disposal of those huge batteries do to the environment.

There's a fair amount of propaganda on "climate change" regarding weather "changes" on the western coast of the USA, which is actually directly attributable to the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), a natural 60-80 year cycle.

Obviously attributing climate to a natural cycle doesn't fit the desired narratives.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
Really? That's an interesting OPINION you have.

You misunderstand the distinction between opinions and facts. If you would like to provide evidence that climate change isn't happening, please feel free to do so.


we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle.

We have a data set going back literally hundreds of thousands of years. This is in absolutely no way a "natural cycle":

jr. member
Activity: 70
Merit: 3
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

Well if you mention what proof it is easier to answer Smiley and I think they mainly doubt why things change not that the change they see is real.

The main problem is that the climate always change over long periods of time, so there is always something to blame. We have gone from hot climate to ice age and back so many times, it might not be a problem many could arguee.

Can you really prove that the amount of dimming vs the amount of heat absorption is heating us, that no natural causes is to blame(sun etc)?

The next thing comes down to simple psychology, human brains do very bad with change, especially for the worse, and we rather blame nature then accept being part of said change.
We also must come to realization of the situation, something that requires humans to read up on it and focus on it, which they most likely won´t. If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

Good luck!

I find that climate cycles are something that are not talked about enough. I certainly don't think that what humans are doing has no effect on the environment, but we have a very limited data set in terms of the history of the earth. So often people talk about climate change, but it's so rare for people to acknowledge that it's (at least in part) a natural cycle. Another thing that bugs me is that in popular media sometimes so much responsibility is put on the end consumer, average people. If all the people in the world stop letting their vehicles idle when they aren't driving and start using reusable bags at the grocery store, it will still be a drop in the ocean compared to the effects industry and agriculture have on the environment. Talk about climate change is often a political stunt or an ad campaign. The issue is so complex. If everybody changes their light bulbs to some more environmentally-friendly ones, that may be a good thing, but you also have to take into account that a new factory had to be create to produce all those light bulbs. I've heard similar things about electric cars. Sure, it's great that electric cars don't burn fuel, but whats potential damage do the production and disposal of those huge batteries do to the environment.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

There's that same mistaken argument again - there are no opposing facts. The facts are unequivocal and undisputed that climate change is real and man-made. There are opposing opinions, but they are just that - opinions.

Really? That's an interesting OPINION you have.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 108
Climate change do have scientific proofs, concrete evidences, and strong observably effect on our Earth today. However, despite these justifications and exemplifications, there are some people who are still skeptical about it. Why? Well, I think that the reason why people are skeptical about the climate change issue is because people love to make excuses. I mean, we are afraid of the duties and responsibilities that were given to us. Thus, they think that when they start contradicting a certain concept, they will not obliged anymore to take over. Furthermore, one reason I think also is because of the thinking that: if I am not feeling the effect, then I will not do anything. Meaning, if its effects on us  is something we do not yet feel, then nothing we will do.
jr. member
Activity: 217
Merit: 1
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.

It's either people's deniability or their enigmatic ignorance that hinders their own unique awareness on the planet and the changes in
the climate today. Climate change and global warming is serious, it's unprecedented and is accelerating alongside pollution and depletion
of natural resources. Social media and the growing number of news and documentaries throughout the years will attest to the fact that
climate change has already begun years ago, were headed to an unknown outcome if things get seriously worse. Ignorance is bliss.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
If media gave them a false view, it is even less likely they will ever come to see the situation with pure logical thinking or even read sources stating opposing facts :S

There's that same mistaken argument again - there are no opposing facts. The facts are unequivocal and undisputed that climate change is real and man-made. There are opposing opinions, but they are just that - opinions.
Pages:
Jump to: