Talk

Advanced search

People Genuinely believe it isn't a 'thing'

(35 Posts)
DropItLikeASquat Wed 30-May-18 12:33:27

I am stunned by the sheer amount of people that don't believe that Climate change is real and that the world is just doing what it naturally does without any human influence.
WTAF?
Im shook- and speechless that people can dismiss it so candidly.
thoughts please....... so my mind doesn't cave in. TIA

Geode73 Tue 30-Oct-18 09:23:51

The Earth is a delicately balanced system if u over push one area it relabances at a new level. Large volcanic eruptions effect the world's temp and that has a knock on plant life and animal life. CO2 emissions have also been doing this, soon our perma frost will start to melt which will release methane which is a far worse green house gas. We are mad to think we can pump vast amounts of pollution and gases into our atmosphere without it affecting the whole system. Here is a pic showing the change in a glacier over 103 years. Yes the climate has changed in the earth's history but not at such a fast rate.

tiredgirly Fri 26-Oct-18 07:31:55

Talking about agenda, climate change scientist s are not going to want to deny something that is there life's work and livelihood. Examples of cherry picking data and even falsification have been exposed in the past

Chocolatelavender Sat 01-Sep-18 08:23:45

Grasslands that is a very valid point. Unfortunately I think greed is a contributing factor.

knittingdad Sun 26-Aug-18 13:56:08

Hilbo, you have been lied to. I recommend reading the IPCC reports directly, starting with the summary for policymakers, and working through to more detail from there.

Grasslands Fri 17-Aug-18 05:38:09

would there really be so much concern about climate change IF proper infrastructure was put in place in ALL countries?
lots of places get enough water although all at once, should they not be working on capturing it and using it during times of drought.
hot sunny spots should be using solar energy vs other types of fuel.
people should not be given permission to build on the edge of rivers/lakes/ocean etc.
what i see blamed on climate change is actually often a lack of modern infrastructure and poor government spending on nonsense.

Chocolatelavender Fri 17-Aug-18 05:08:37

There are people expressing genuine concerns, it's time we listened and addressed these concerns. Rather than shutting them down with outright denial. According to what I copied and pasted below these concerns have existed for a long time.

amp.businessinsider.com/newspaper-in-1912-linked-coal-to-climate-change-2018-8

A news article from 1912 warned that burning coal was releasing dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere.
The paper succinctly summed up the problem of human-caused climate change, saying that CO2 "tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature."
The clip has gone viral on social media.
We're still burning tons of coal, 106 years later.

stilllovingmysleep Sun 12-Aug-18 11:34:44

How is the earth getting warmer "probably a good thing"? In what way good? And for whom!? I really don't get this argument. Can't follow it.

For the rest, I will wait to hear what others think too and I will follow up on the links you have shared. In a nutshell, I disagree with almost everything you've written, but dialogue is always a good thing.

hilbobaggins Sat 11-Aug-18 22:46:31

Hi stillloving

Thanks for continuing the conversation.

I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool climate change advocate so I very much understand the anxiety around climate change issues and the anger at those who don’t seem to “get it”. I’ve really changed my mind in the last couple of years.

I now believe that there is no experimental data that supports the view that the climate is changing in a way that is unusual or dangerous, and that CO2 is a bit player in whatever climate change is taking plane. The earth does seem to be warming, but that’s a) probably a good thing and b) nothing that hasn’t happened before and c) as far as I can understand, not necessarily related to CO2 levels.

I really cannot see that anyone can produce clear evidence that humans are altering the climate in any significant way. I came to this conclusion after going out of my way to try to understand the sceptics’ perspective so that I could better challenge it. It quickly became clear to me that the “97% consensus” figure simply didn’t stand up to scrutiny - the methodology behind this research is terrible - but as I read and listened to more and more scientists and commentators who challenged the prevailing viewpoint that humans are responsible for climate change and that the impact will be catastrophic, I became more convinced by that this was not in fact the case.

If you’re interested, some of the people who influenced me along the way were Judith Murray, Anthony Watts, Willie Soon, Alex Epstein, Kary Mullis and Christopher Monkton. Some of these people have had their reputations trashed for speaking up against the climate change proponents. (These are not stupid people, ideologues or rich lunatics. If you spend any time listening to them you’ll see that they are eminently reasonable and present evidence in a clear, often cautious, non-emotional way.) This trashing of peoples’ reputations seems disgraceful to me, although understandable - there is now an entire industry built up around climate change research, and a great deal of money and power is at stake. Working in academia, and seeing how research careers are built, has helped me understand much more about this.

In terms of what should be done? Do as little as possible, always remember that to every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction, and for gods sake don’t trust governments when they start talking about green taxes. (How the hell can a government change the climate?? It’s absurd!). Keep using our wonderful fossil fuels - we have no choice there anyway - and be grateful for them, because without them we’d all be dead in 3 weeks, and wind power just ain’t going to cut it. Keep energy prices down. Bear in mind that developing nations desperately need access to plenty of cheap energy, and that a country’s increase in CO2 emissions correlates with childhood survival rates.

I also think we need to be a bit more positive about ourselves generally because as I said earlier, the ghastly human polluter narrative doesn’t get anyone anywhere. I hold Al Gore partly responsible for this - his movie was an absolute travesty and did a great deal of damage to people on a personal and a political level. The message is just bleak and joyless and people don’t want to hear it. I don’t feel remotely guilty for puffing out CO2 when I’m on my bike, or about putting petrol in my car, and nobody else should either.

There is a different conversation to be had about air and water pollution and plastic in the ocean, both of which seem to be difficult though not impossible problems to solve. I don’t know that much about the solutions being investigated, but I’ve no doubt that science and private enterprise will resolve these problems in the coming years. As ever, governments should keep their involvement to a minimum.

stilllovingmysleep Thu 09-Aug-18 07:29:03

OK Hildobaggins thank you for trying to engage in dialogue. I agree it's important to have these discussions.

So instead of accusing others (as you've been doing) about 'not engaging in dialogue' and having views that are dogmatic, can I ask you to spell out please, if you wish:

--what you believe about human-influenced climate change
--what if anything you believe should happen about it both on an individual level (should we be making any changes in your opinion in our everyday lives) and on a government-based level?

I do find interesting your idea that seeing human beings as little individual 'carbon footprints' who 'spoil' the earth is a negativistic & resigned attitude. However, we human beings collectively do have a lot to answer for when it comes to our relationship with the earth on which we live. Can I ask about this too, what is your opinion on this, in terms of how we should be seeing our ability to effect change but also how we should view our collective responsibility (if you see any) for the changes that are happening in the climate (unless you don't accept that humans have anything to do with them).

I will be interested (genuinely) in hearing your answers.

hilbobaggins Tue 07-Aug-18 21:52:42

MyDarling “when the vast majority interpret huge amounts of data a certain way then contrary views are normally political”

What a very odd way to view the research process. So anyone who disagrees with the majority’s interpretation of data is doing it for “political” motivations? What are you basing this opinion on?

“there is a scientific consensus on man made climate change”

Ok. I think it’s bizarre to try to reduce the complexity of climate science - rife as it is with opinion and nuance - to a percentage point, but let’s go with the idea of consensus. What IS this consensus, exactly? What is it that everyone agrees on? How much are humans impacting the climate - I’m assuming that this “consensus” has agreed on this? There’s a big difference between saying that there’s minimal impact and the effects aren’t really anything to worry about, and saying that our impact is enormous and the coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years, but both of these opinions would come under the category of “a scientific consensus on man made climate change”. I mean some of these people are influencing policy for gods sake (and you don’t get much more “political” than that) - I think they need to do a little better than “97% of us agree with something that nobody can really define.” Don’t you?

MyDarlingWhatIfYouFly Tue 07-Aug-18 14:10:15

Cook was only one consensus study - there have been others and they have all indicated a consensus opinion of above 90%, even if your critique of cook were to be correct.

The "there's are loads of examples where scientists were wrong" argument is so tiresome. I've even heard "scientists thought the earth was flat" used in that context. In the past a rigorous scientific method wasn't always used by scientists because we didn't have one. Things have changed - scientists may not always have the whole truth on any given subject because it's impossible, but when the vast majority interpret huge amounts of data a certain way then contrary views are normally political.

There is scientific consensus on man made climate change. Calling Obama a golfer is going to change the science neither is referring to SJW. You've just given another perfect example of being complete inability to separate your political views from science. Oh and the job protection racket stuff just sounds like tinfoil hat brigade bollocks.

hilbobaggins Tue 07-Aug-18 10:24:20

Yes, WhollyFather. The methodology of the Cook study is a disgrace. NotWeaving,
If you’re a scientist I’m amazed that you can accept the 97% statistic on face value. Apart from the utterly flawed model used by Cook, anyone who’s worked around data knows that you can get the data to say anything you want.

“The majority of experts” argument holds absolutely no water with me because history is full of examples of times when the majority of experts have been flat-out wrong. This is particularly true where peoples’ livelihoods and reputations depend on having the “correct” opinion, and there are severe social and economic penalties for those who hold the “wrong” viewpoint. Disagreeing with the prevailing viewpoint is career suicide in climate science. How can there possibly be a sensible approach in that environment?

I think a lot of this comes down to one’s own relationship with authority and how much you like being told what to do. If you believe that “experts” are good at accurately predicting gloom and doom scenarios you’ll be seriously worried about climate change. If you trust that governments are going to solve the problem (if indeed it exists) and that they somehow know what to do any better than anyone else - then you’ll be happy when your taxes are increased under the “green” label. Personally I’m sceptical of both.

I’m open to the idea that humans are having a minor impact on the climate, but how much and how much of this is actually a problem is unknown. I’m sure that our grandkids will find the idea that for a couple of insane decades we worried that human CO2 output would destroy the planet completely bonkers.

Chocolatelavender Tue 07-Aug-18 03:35:15

NotWeavingButDarning grinstar If there was a an emoji for applause I would have clicked on that too.

WhollyFather Sun 05-Aug-18 16:56:38

Wilfully ignorant of science? What, like those who still push John Cook's nonsense '97%' claim, repeated by that noted golfer Pres. Obama??

'The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.'
..and note this refers to papers not scientists.

The climate has always changed and always will. The debate now is how much has mankind's use of carbon-based fuels contributed to the very small rise in temps we have seen since about 1970 (global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970). I suspect the answer is 'too little to measure', not that that will stop the various activists etc. who insist otherwise.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a scam and a fraud based almost entirely on 'adjusted', rigged or downright invented data, and computer models which 'prove' exactly what the modeller wanted, pushed by a variety of vested interests and various guilt-ridden SJWs.

MyDarlingWhatIfYouFly Sun 05-Aug-18 16:35:52

Ffs. No. I seriously cannot believe that you brought up holocaust denial as a way of shutting down criticism of those who are wilfully ignorant of science.

The impact on poorer countries, the negative language. Even the green taxes - all entirely unwanted consequences of climate change for everyone. But not liking what goes with it is not an excuse to flatly deny the scientific evidence indicating the existence of manmade climate change.

Some people are entirely unable to separate their political views on the topic from the science (James Dellingpole springs to mind as someone who is massively guilty of this).

hilbobaggins Sun 05-Aug-18 09:53:43

Ok... interesting comments

Thanks for the link NotWeaving.

I do think that environmentalism is miserablist, by which I mean it has a weird, deeply anti-human approach that seems to see human beings as nothing more than individual small carbon footprints, each one doing its own small individual but of damage to pristine Mother Earth. It ignores the incredible ingenuity of humans, their brilliance and adaptability, their ability to create and imagine and overcome. I just don’t see people as a blight on an otherwise perfect landscape. That kind of thinking is so desperately depressing and anxiety-producing, and anxiety doesn’t produce good thinking or policy-making. It also really puts people off - who wants to go around feeling guilty for existing all the time? - and public interest in the topic is declining. Maybe that’s worth discussing on this forum?

I also find that there’s something very odd about the language of environmentalism and “climate change”. It’s quasi-religious and has all the trappings of an ideology in which people caught up in it will do everything they can to preserve the ideology. Scientists who dare to speak against the prevailing view are vilified as “heretics” (see, for example, Dr Judith Murray). I make one post here (in a section of Mumsnet which hardly anyone comes to, which speaks volumes about the level of public interest in his topic - you’d think people here would be happy to have any kind of engagement!) and I’m immediately called a “denier” (again, strange quasi-religious language and link to other unthinkable topics such as Holocaust denial) and it’s implied that’s I’m not smart enough to read. Oh, and that nobody here can be bothered to discuss the topic with me. I don’t really care, but if you’re interested in changing people’s minds maybe this isn’t the best way to go about it?

You have to be in a pretty comfortable position to worry about climate change. We’re lucky in that we’ve been through our industrial revolution and that in the west we live pretty good lives. How is tough climate change legislation going to help people in poorer countries to achieve the sort of standards of living we now have?

I’m just sceptical, that’s all, and I have questions. But I guess the Climate Change section of Mumsnet isn’t the best place for a discussion about, um, climate change. My bad.

I’ll leave you to the tumbleweeds.

NotWeavingButDarning Sat 04-Aug-18 14:41:14

Hilbobaggins actually that poster pretty much sums up the frustration most scientists feel about there still being people who are so incredibly obtuse that they continue to argue vehemently against facts about which they are too lazy or obstreperous to educate themselves.

If you find yourself unable to run a google search, try the following for information. It's pretty comprehensive. It's not anyone else's job to spoon feed you. Presumably you can read.

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

MyDarlingWhatIfYouFly Fri 03-Aug-18 22:40:25

"Miserable climate change hype"

Sorry if it's too depressing for you, let's just ignore it then eh.

The 97% comes from 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers that take a view on the matter concluding that climate change is man-made. If you are going to ask us to cite every study (a common tactic by deniers and anti-vaxxers) then no, frankly I can't be bothered and I doubt anyone else on here will be bothered to either. Just like I cannot be bothered to read every paper on every other scientific topic I'm interested in. I generally trust the consensus opinion of scientists who work in that field, they tend to require evidence to support their conclusions if they are willing to draw one.

hilbobaggins Fri 03-Aug-18 22:21:28

That’s a cute, meaningless poster, NotWeaving. It’s not evidence.

Can you tell me exactly what this 97% of scientists agree on, and exactly what the source of this data is?

NotWeavingButDarning Fri 03-Aug-18 17:30:10

This basically sums it up for me (I'm a scientist)

Apileofballyhoo Fri 03-Aug-18 13:10:16

Looks like the global warming deniers are here too, OP!

It'll probably be ok for the super rich though.

hilbobaggins Fri 03-Aug-18 13:06:18

“The vast majority of scientists think climate change is genuine”

Scientists don’t just get together in a room and vote to see who agrees with whom, you know. That’s not how science works.

Look, the climate is always changing. That’s not the question. The question is how much change is due to human activity, and the science is wholly inconclusive and constantly evolving because it’s such a massively complex topic. You won’t be able to find conclusive evidence because there isn’t any!

However, if you want to feel constantly worried and like a walking “carbon footprint”, doing damage to mother earth simply by existing, by all means carry on believing the miserable “climate change” hype.

bionicnemonic Tue 17-Jul-18 16:48:45

Sculpture: politicians discussing global warming

HopelesslydevotedtoGu Tue 17-Jul-18 14:50:59

Depressing when on a global scale they are probably very well off

Sarahjconnor Tue 17-Jul-18 14:28:26

All the deniers I know have changed their tune to 'its too expensive to fix' now.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »