People Genuinely believe it isn't a 'thing'

[DropItLikeASquat]

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

I think people would rather bury their heads in the sand about something they can do practically nothing about than get 'shook'

It puzzles me too. So much evidence. Scientists speaking up and articles written and still so much denial. I read a news article once (can't remember what it was titled otherwise I would find it and link it) where it discussed the is climate change caused by human actions or is it just naturally occurring. It basically said that if this climate change we are experiencing was naturally occurring then it would occur more gradually over hundreds or thousands of years. But the rapid changes we've already experienced have occurred over the last few decades. The polar icecaps are melting. We've already lost significant amounts of icebergs. Rising sea levels, increased temperature in the oceans leading to coral bleaching (the great barrier reef is dying), longer and hotter heat waves, increased frequency of destructive storms like hurricanes etc., and so, so much more. What more needs to happen before the majority of us pull our heads out of the sand. I've heard far to many people (usually the older generation) saying: 'It's not going to happen in my lifetime.' And I think that this apathy towards our future generations is partly to blame. I feel like saying to those people: 'So you don't care about your children and grandchildren then.' But it wouldn't make a difference. So many people in powerful, influential and government positions are in the older generation bracket. And while not all of the older generation are apathetic towards climate change (a fair few climate scientists are in the older generation) a great many seem to want to make it through their lives without giving up old ways of doing things (because it's easier and familiar). So, denial it is. For younger generations I think denial has a lot to do with either feeling powerless or simply trusting that the older generation is right. In Australia our government has been advertising that coal is still very important for our future and that the alternative fuel and energy resources are not as good. So, we continue to mine coal, use coal and invest in coal powered infrastructure rather than infrastructure that uses alternatives. This comes down to greed and money. People believe what is advertised and it influences their actions.

But there’s also plenty of evidence to the contrary - or, rather, there is a lack of evidence that any “climate change” is due to human activity.

I’m honestly not trying to be provocative, because I used to be constantly worried about climate change too. Hot summers used to immediately call to mind images of melting ice-caps and dying polar bears. But I’ve changed my mind recently because I just don’t think the evidence is conclusive. Far from it.

If you are worried about climate change, and believe in it, you will go out of your way to find evidence that supports the view that climate change is happening and more importantly that it’s due to human behaviour. That means you approach the subject in a way that is immediately one-sided. But honestly, how much time have you invested in reading books and watching videos by scientists who challenge your view? I promise you that if you do,
what you find will surprise you. You may want to start with the founder of Greenpeace, who left the organisation disgusted by the approach activists were taking. He is one of many who speak up (bravely, in my opinion) against the climate change juggernaut, calling for a more rational approach. There are many others like him.

You may think that I’m an ignorant “denier” and feel free to ignore what I’ve said (although if you do that, it might be worth thinking about what causes you to have that reaction). But if you’re up for it, my challenge to you is to spend a week researching the “other side” and seeing how you feel after that. What have you got to lose?

Well, 97% of scientists says man - made climate change is happening.
You know, the people with the skills and knowledge to critically assess the evidence.

Founder of Greenpeace??
Not so.
www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore

To the people who say ‘what have we got to lose’ surely even if you don’t believe it the world would be a better place for all of us if we treated with respect?

So, Dancingledge, have you watched what he had to say? What did you think about the evidence he presented?

What exactly do you think this “97% of scientists” agree on, DancingLedge?

greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

This cartoon sums it up
(I haven't read the article below it yet)

The vast majority of scientists think climate change is genuine.
A small number don't.
The outcome of not acting if climate change if happening is devastating.
Many of the changes to reduce climate change are actually good in other ways too.
With any scientific area you never know 100%, things are always open to new evidence. If we waited for 100% certainty we would never do anything. You need to act on the best available evidence and continue reviewing.

I do know one climate change denier who changed their mind in recent years. It hasn't stopped them flying round the world, but it has stopped them sharing nonsense on facebook, so that is something.

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

Sculpture: politicians discussing global warming

“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.

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

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

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

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?

"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 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.

grist.org/series/skeptics/

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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?