Climate change deniers

[Andy_T]

I have not noticed a universal consensus among scientists about human-caused climate change. We must remember that honest and reasonable people can disagree on basic issues. I say that the debate should continue.

What do you mean?

The fact that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made and 3% have doubts is not "universal" enough for you?

(It makes sense to note that the remaining 3% of studies claiming that it is not man-made could, so far, not be reproduced by other independent scientists, further strengthening the argument of the 97% majority group)

 

[Nekodaiden]

What do you mean?

The fact that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made and 3% have doubts is not "universal" enough for you?

(It makes sense to note that the remaining 3% of studies claiming that it is not man-made could, so far, not be reproduced by other independent scientists, further strengthening the argument of the 97% majority group)

Eh, not really:

The Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate Change

Relevant passage:

------

[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]

So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change. This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend.

------

 

[beancounter]

This is a "me too" post, but I agree with what David3 said in post number 6, as I have heard similar arguments made by CC deniers.

These people have quaffed the Kool-Aid, and there is just no convincing them otherwise.

If this person really is a good friend, then I would just avoid the topic when you're with him.

 

[beancounter]

By the way, Pluto is a real planet and not a dwarf planet. Pluto will always remain a real planet in my mind. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe you do not agree with me. But, the debate is fascinating.

Careful, ...there are at least a few Pluto haters on this forum, who are pleased that Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet status. (I'm only half joking)

 

[SapphireLightning]

No, certainly no action on hold.

I worked in the solar energy industry for 17 years. Global development of solar energy has resulted in huge price reductions in solar panels.

Forbes magazine article chart of PV (photovoltaic = solar) cost history, by year:
Link: Solar Energy Revolution: A Massive Opportunity

View attachment 21126

I remember a recent thread about a new Michael Moore documentary that tried to vilify a certain pro-eco person. Part of moores argument for the entire documentary hinged on his use of wildly out of date data on the cost of solar. Odd that this chart pops up, no one seemed to notice my post in that thread, and continued to side with moore and his 1996 "current" data...

 

[Hog]

Here is a magazine article about the 97% consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

I do not want to personally involve my self in the discussion about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. I would really like to keep my mouth shut in order to avoid revealing the depth of my own personal stupidity about climate change.

I will assume for a moment that there is a 100% consensus among scientists that human-caused climate change is real. Yet, I certainly do not act like human-caused climate change is real. I have not sold my car and purchased a bus pass. I keep my home too cool in the summer and too warm in the winter. I still buy garbage that I do not need.

I might believe that I am an environmentalist. But, I certainly do not act like an environmentalist.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Agreed on Biden David, and good job on solar.

The 97% estimate is years and years ago, and the science has got way stronger and stronger since then as has the warming trend and measured CO2 increases. if they surveyed climate scientists now I think they'd get above 97%. There isn't a respectable science organization anywhere in the world that disputes it.

In 2005 they did a study mapping where the CO2 was emitted to where the heat is in the atmosphere and found a close match. Studies like that pushed us up above 97% at least by 2005 if not earlier. Since then much more evidence has been piled on.

But why do we need it to be 97%, or higher, or 100%. If the odds were hypothetically 50% that humans were causing climate change it would make sense to act rapidly given that A - the effects of climate change are horrendous and B - any negative effects of changing to vegan diets, solar panels, electric cars etc are minor if not zero after positive effects such as reduced pollution etc are taken into account. So as long as you can accept it's 50%, you can take the same actions as if you believe it's 100%.

Yeah the Michael Moore film to try and rubbish solar used examples from >10 years ago. Rubbish movie.

By the way, I have read very, very extensively on climate change maybe 10 books and scientific research papers, and all the articles they publish in the media, studied the science, have two science degrees. I am way above 97% sure that humans are causing climate change. Probably 99%. And the only reason it's not 100% is because there is no 100%. We can't be 100% sure we aren't living in the matrix. 99% is about the highest you can ever be sure of anything.

If someone pointed a gun to your head wth 5 bullets in the 6 chambers you wouldn't say "go ahead, pull the trigger, since there is a 1 in 6 chance I'll survive, and it's too much effort to take one step to the side". And yet that is basically what we are doing with climate change.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Let's put aside the logical fallacies for a moment (ie: Argument from Authority, Bandwagon Fallacy), and the high likelihood that anyone working in "climate change" with public/government funding would probably not even be there unless they already held certain biases related to that funding.

Explain this (in your own words, please) to this skeptic:

Carbon is taken up by plants. They take up carbon and release oxygen as they grow. Adding a CO2 source, say, to an enclosed/indoor garden boosts plant growth.

Burning hydrocarbons (such as dead plant matter, like wood, so called "fossil fuels" etc) releases C02 (1 carbon + 2 oxygen), and water (2 hydrogen + 1 oxygen). The stored energy is released as heat.

There is no net increase in carbon with the burning of hydrocarbons, all that changes is their form - from a solid(or liquid or other gas) that contains carbon and other molecules, to a gas that contains carbon and oxygen. The carbon+oxygen released are taken up by plants to stimulate growth and they again release oxygen for us to breath.



Isn't the whole idea of a (C02) causation of overall climate warming a dismissal of the fact that plants take up carbon? Or if not this, is it the speculation that there is not enough plant life to take up this carbon? Or that the plant life is somehow already saturated with this carbon to the point where it rejects more carbon?

If we assume no carbon is being added to our world(and I see no reason to), only that it is accumulating in a certain form affecting climate, isn't it reasonable to also assume that somehow the carbon cycle has failed? I think that is what follows and is one of the reasons I doubt climate change based on rising C02.

 

[Hog]

At one time, I believed that vegans were a bunch of crazy people who would experience an early death due to malnutrition. I thought that raising a vegan child was child abuse. I have obviously changed my mind.

Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. This suggests to me that there is great disagreement among voters in the United States regarding opinions about climate change.

Do we have huge environmental problems that could cause human extinction? In my opinion, YES. Am I responsible for the destruction of the land, seas, and sky? In my opinion, YES. I need to change my consumption patterns. So I guess I am the ultimate hypocrite.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Right. So @Indian Summer (or anyone else who "disagrees" with my post), show me, in your own words, and *without* using logical fallacies where I am mistaken. That means not quoting any so called Authorities or relying on bandwagon fallacies to start - because I'm not going to be convinced by them. I said I'm on the fence. Make me a believer. Isn't that what you want? More believers? Or just more people following "leaders" and herd think?

Let's face it, there are "experts" on both sides of this fence (of the role of humans in climate change). I'm not likely to convince anyone by quoting them here. All that is going to happen is that people's biases will be kicked into action and they'll attempt to discredit them in some way or marginalize them by quoting their own "reputable" experts (meaning the ones that favor their bias).

So do it in your own words. Convince me, just like Veganite wishes to convince his friend, that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon caused specifically by humans and rules out to the greater extent other factors.

 

[Hog]

I do not need to know the specifics about how climate change works. An agreement about climate change is completely unnecessary in the real world. I just need to embrace minimalism. I should remain humble to the omnipotence of Mother Nature and/or God. I do not think there is a democrat or republican who will degrade me or humiliate me for what I just said.

Veganism is above petty political discussions. I do not need to be a democrat or a republican to be a vegan. Veganism works for me on every possible level: environmental, health, and personal finances. I am Hog. I am vegan.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I certainly do not act like human-caused climate change is real. I have not sold my car and purchased a bus pass. I keep my home too cool in the summer and too warm in the winter. I still buy garbage that I do not need.

You have made such comments a few times before. Obviously your veganism is already a great start re climate change but it sounds like you might be prepared to make a few more changes at this point.

Would you be willing to have a debate with me here about some changes you could make? It might be an interesting case study and you seem pretty open to share details about your life (from previous posts). But warning - the answer to the simple question of how you can least painfully make a large cut to your carbon footprint will probably start off with me asking 5-10 questions about your personal life and then depending on the answers I might have a suggestion or I might need to ask about 5 or 10 more!

Until I ask a bunch of questions I can't really suggest any ideas.

Or perhaps you prefer to figure it out for yourself.

 

[Hog]

@ Jamie - Thank you for the kind offer. I would be too embarrassed to chat about lifestyle changes that I need to make.

I will give one slightly embarrassing example of how I damage the environment. I will gloss over several details in the below story in the interest of time and space.

My autistic son receives special education services from the school district that costs about $50,000 a year. Most of the money is a complete waste. However, I got into a big argument with the school district. So I hired a lawyer to help the district understand my point of view. It was the best $3,000 I ever spent. The district came up with very expensive solutions to the problem. I thought, "Oh, my gosh. What a waste." Then, I thought, "I might as well milk the system if they want to be difficult jerks." Everybody seems perfectly happy with the fact that I am milking the system. Still, I know there are far more efficient ways to do things.

 

[Veganismo]

Although there is a large gap between progressives and traditionalists in terms of whether they check the "I believe in human-caused global warming," box on a survey, there is far less of a gap in terms of behaviors. I know plenty of self-proclaimed progressives who drive SUVs when it's not necessary, live in huge houses, and of course almost all of them are non-vegan, etc., and I know conservatives who are very conscientious about their environment, grow a lot of their own food, etc. Maybe it's different here in Montana, but being good stewards does not depend entirely on whether or not you believe in human-caused global warming. Even in this very red state, we're repairing grasslands, streambeds, dealing with a hundred years of damage from mining, vermiculite (asbestos) mines, etc. If you ask people why, they don't say "because of global warming!" they say "because we need to take better care of the environment." Although there are plenty to would deny global warming, there are none to think we should pour more chemicals in our rivers.

So, for your friend, maybe you can just focus on taking good care of the planet? I have conservatives in my family who would deny human-caused global warming but are more than willing to recycle their cans, plant native plants in their gardens, and even one who is approaching veganism (cautiously, but more fully than all but one of the progressives in my family). So, taking good care of the planet is another way to approach the issue rather than trying to convince someone to change their beliefs (which is essentially impossible, or so close to it that it can be considered so).

I was surprised to see this in the NYT recently:

Opinion | The End of Meat Is Here

It makes the point that there is a huge inconsistency in support of progressive policies and eating meat. I am going to send it to all the non-vegan progressives in my family.

 

[Lou]

I was surprised to see this in the NYT recently:

Opinion | The End of Meat Is Here

It makes the point that there is a huge inconsistency in support of progressive policies and eating meat. I am going to send it to all the non-vegan progressives in my family.

Yah. we have been discussing that article in another thread here. I really liked it, too.

 

[Blues]

I think it would be easier converting him to veganism, sadly.

*

Well I don’t know about converting him to veganism , but encouraging him to consider a vegan life style would be better for him than arguing over climate change.

There have been good suggestions in the thread , namely, just stay away from his views on climate denial and value your friendship.

 

[Lou]

Saw this in my inbox today and I wanted to share it on the VF. this thread seemed like a good one.

Oddly, the only image of this chart was on twitter

Top 20 California Wildfires by year.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1436410274408386560

oh, and here is the petition to sign.

Sign and send the petition: Climate can't wait. We need historic investments now.

The Build Back Better Act that Democrats are pushing through Congress would provide historic investments in our infrastructure to combat the effects of climate change, and it doesn't require a sing...

www.dailykos.com