Climate Change denial

[Anonymous No.10627768]

Why do so many in the people deny something as basic as the carbon cycle? I've heard just about every conspiracy theory for not "believing" in climate change from govt. conspiracies to liberal science propaganda. Is there a scientific explanation?

[Anonymous No.10627772]

>climate change fake news. orange man said so!

[Anonymous No.10627774]

imagine sacrificing your vicious capitalist lifestyle so ur children wouldnt be doomed omegalul hell no /s

[Anonymous No.10627781]

>>10627774
funny thing is going "green" in the path of nuclear fusion would likely lead to a more prosperous and efficient way of life. this is just pure laziness of the people who defend this shit and greed by the oil/coal companies to squeeze whatever money they have left.

[Anonymous No.10627784]

>>10627772

[Anonymous No.10627910]

>>10627781
Not even fusion. Fission can already help us go Green and with the help of renewables we can reach fusion a lot sooner. People have a lot of horrible misconceptions about nuclear and it seems many people don't even realize that we have many different reactor designs to choose from, too.

[Anonymous No.10627981]

Is there any real chance of geo-engineering our way out of this? Or some sort of carbon capture technology

[Anonymous No.10628095]

>>10627981
I remember reading there was a carbon-capturing powder that some researchers were planning on spreading in the air, apparently it could absorb 50x its mass in carbon. I can't find the link, it may very well have been bogus. But it sounds an awful lot like snowpiercer's start.
But long story short, we're probably fucked since there's a massive lack of political will to do anything about this issue. Not only from the literal retards in office, but also the Paris Climate Accords have already fallen short of much of their initial goals.

[Anonymous No.10628102]

>>10627981
>>10627784
>>10627768

I fear the real evil here is that climate change is only one facet of envrionmental health.
We often ignore much more pressing and related topics to push climate change, which is not effective or totally honest. Once some doubt is cast then crazy doucebags come out pushing the fallacy that if 1 thing is inaccurate then everything is wrong.

Deforestation, loss of habitat, pollution on a massive scale of so many types beyond CO2.

[Anonymous No.10628116]

>>10628095
>>10627981

The real step 1:
And its not about climate change (not directly anyway)
Here is the beginning of a solution to 1 of the major problems:
but sadly it does require political cooperation. :(

Read one of the latest non-technical Nature articles:
Fix the broken food system in three steps

[Anonymous No.10628240]

>>10628116
>Fix the broken food system in three steps
I read through it and it is pretty interesting. Again, this crisis can definitely be solved but people are taking it way to lax. We do have the capacity for innovation but to assume that we'll just engineer our way out of every shitty situation is just wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.10628245]

>>10627768
you shouldnt trust science thats seeped in politics

[Anonymous No.10628251]

It's not scientific or factual.

It's like calling overpopulation science from the 60s a science. Yes, it comes from academics, but it's not science.

The science ends when you get people predicting 2100 climate and technology.

[Anonymous No.10628260]

>>10627768
Same reason why people believe that vaccines are harmful, and earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job, etc: Dumb people feel smarter believing conspiracy theories.

Add the fact that some powerful people can benefit from this belief, and you get stupid ideas being spread everywhere.

[Anonymous No.10628263]

>>10628245
this. i think that climate change is real but i'm hesitant to trust any "facts" or time estimates about it that are politically motivated.

[Anonymous No.10628272]

>>10628260
>I'm going to use earth is flat to discredit people who don't believe in my predictive power for the year 2100+

idiot

[Anonymous No.10628281]

>>10628263
This

There is a lot more to the whole climate issue

- international cooperation: The Paris Accord has ZERO requirements for India or China, and many other countries do ilterally nothing but recieve loans through it.

It's also not binding

- Technology: we have no idea what technology will be like in 10 years much less 80. The problems of today could be non-problems 80 years from now

They used to pay soldiers in salt for fucks sake. We have no idea what power sources will be available or why.

- A lot of climate change action is detrimental and could make the problem worse.

Think of it like a rocket ship. Deceleration is not always good if you are aiming for escape velocity.

AKA some democratic government does harsh climate change measures, they get thrown out the next election and the next 30 years mean more pollution total.

It's WAY WAY more complicated than "accept the science idiot"

[Anonymous No.10628303]

>>10627981
Throwing opaque/reflective particles on the atmosphere would immediately stop global warming but would almost surely have massive unintended consequences. We could still do it and it wouldn't even be that expensive.

>>10627768
Scientists are not very good at communicating their findings, even to other scientists. Because of this often times, especially between different unrelated areas, things must be taken as fact just because they are science, when in reality most engineers would probably find the average psychology work unpublishable and vice versa.

In topics where you demand a massive change in lifestyle from people, research should be the most clearly communicated and most accurate possible, but sadly often times these topics are exactly the most complex ones involving hard to predict systems like climate, human bodies or nutrition. These are also areas where misuse of statistics generates plausible results that are very hard to check until mistakes become apparent only much later on. Thus it is hardly surprising vaccines, climate change, eggs being good or not for your heart, etc, are always highly debated topics especially outside of academia.

Remember that the first medical researcher who proposed washing hands might be a good idea before surgery died in a mental institution because the vast majority of European experts was in agreement that diseases were not transmitted by germs, but instead by "bad air", and hand washing had nothing to do with it. Were they stupid? Probably not, they probably thought they were using evidence in their favor and also had a strong bias towards defending that position, besides just the basic human pride of not wanting to admit you're wrong.

But the minute you disregard someone's opinions entirely and stop trying to refute them in a clear objective way, you're not being a wise scientist, you're just part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.10628318]

>>10628303
>Remember that the first medical researcher who proposed washing hands might be a good idea before surgery died in a mental institution

ah, i see you've also watched exturb1a's most recent video

[Anonymous No.10628324]

>>10628272
>not using guilt by fabricated association instead of an actual argument

[Anonymous No.10628326]

>>10628303
>Remember that the first medical researcher who proposed washing hands might be a good idea before surgery died in a mental institution
Well, duh, not washing your hands before surgury is pretty much giving the patient a free inoculation against diseases going around in the hospital. It's dangerous to society if anyone washes their hands.

[Anonymous No.10628330]

>>10628260
Indeed, luckily powerful people cannot benefit at all from pushing vaccines that have not been tested enough.
Haha, wow, can you just imagine if big companies could profit by rushing something and causing a massive outbreak of bad reactions in children or something? They might actually have to say it was just bad luck or something! Crazy to think they might actually lose sales right?

[Anonymous No.10628374]

>>10628263
>estimates about it that are politically motivated
define politically motivated?

[Anonymous No.10628493]

>>10627768
If it's fair to assume most people don't want to be the bad guy, then it's difficult for them to accept that they're responsible for disrupting the natural conditions and wiping out 70% of the species of the planet. Who wants that on their conscience? So denying is the coping mechanism. Which ironically makes them even more guilty. Which puts them into stronger denial. Feedback loop.
www ipbes net/assessment-reports

[Anonymous No.10629030]

>>10628251
Why exactly is predicting climate in 2100 a problem? And what technology are toy talking about?

[Anonymous No.10629035]

>>10628245
>denies scientific facts for political reasons
>oh the science is too political now
Weird how no one cared if fixing the ozone with global regulations was "too political" but when the fossil fuel industry is the problem suddenly it's "too political."

[Anonymous No.10629374]

>>10629030

Let's say you want to know the future. What predictive function are you building to understand humanity in 2100? How accurate is it?

How accurate are 5 year predictions?

The technology available to humanity in the year 2100 is almost entirely unpredictable. Hence maybe they have a low-cost way to carbon capture. You have no fucking idea so the predictions of 2100 climate are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.10629376]

>>10629374
So lets say, in this unpredictable environment

A) You have a humanity that shuts down as much carbon usage as possible. This humanity slows down progress, governments collapse, civil unrest due to the slowed economy etc

B) The "dumbfuck" society that just keeps going. They eventually develop technologies and economies of such scale they trivialize the problem and it's nothing.

[Anonymous No.10629380]

>>10629376
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

See this for a historical example of "predictive powers" of scientists. Looking at one or two variables is not enough to predict the future.

[Anonymous No.10629385]

>>10629380

Under an actual complex predictive function you have to explain why the loss in GDP growth etcetera is not worse for finding a solution. It's far more complex. You also have to model all future technologies

The chance of it being a trivial problem in 2100 is non zero as well.

[Anonymous No.10629389]

>>10627768
>man made climate change deniers deny carbon cycle
No, read everything again before posting.

[Anonymous No.10629395]

>>10629374
>prolonged exposure to UV without protection greatly increases the risk of contracting skin cancer, so you should use suntan lotion or avoid being in the sun for long
>Nuh uh you can't predict whether we'll cure cancer so you can't tell me what to do over the next 60 years
My god, the stupidity.

[Anonymous No.10629409]

>>10629395
kek you don't know me or scientific anything

Sun exposure is much better for longevity than no sun expose
Sunblock is what it's called not suntan lotion, and it has it's own scientific problems such that even when swimming outside I don't use it and instead regulate time swimming.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-05-06/sunscreen-chemicals-enter-bloodstream-at-potentially-unsafe-levels-study

braindead low IQ fuck
your brain is like 1/2 as complex as mine and yet you talk to me like you aren't a monkey

[Anonymous No.10629410]

>>10629409
also there is other numerous studies on sunblock lotion showing it's not that great to use that go back. Yes, as a white person living in a sunny climate you should regulate exposure.

Wearing sunblock? FAR less evidence.

[Anonymous No.10629411]

>>10628260
>flat earth is the same as denying climate change
Go back to Scientific 101 and learn to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments.

[Anonymous No.10629414]

>our overpopulation predictions all failed
>what doomsday should we do next
>lets do carbon and extrapolate at about 100x power what we can accurately predict

[Anonymous No.10629418]

>>10627768
Why are you trying to guilt trip people into buying bullshit political agendas? So what if humans cause climate change, go fix it or shut up. No we aint reducing any usage of fossil fuels deal with it.

[Anonymous No.10629420]

This is all you need to understand

- Why do people love doomsday?
- Why did previous errors like population bomb get such traction among "elite academics"?
- What human motivation does it serve, especially to the ego?

[Anonymous No.10629421]

>>10629380

So, brainlet, do you even know how predictions work in the regime of math and science (and engineering, consecutively)?

Go see some information on Linear regression, Neural Nets and what not. These prediction mechanisms are not mere functions of time that your shit high school mind has enabled you to use. You need to see that training set data is used to predict. An algorithm which is self correcting is applied which figures out a pattern from historically collected data. Its not a bunch of dum dums like you sitting in a room and hypothesizing science fiction in a room. It is Math.

[Anonymous No.10629425]

>>10628281
That and the fact "GO GRREEENN11!!1 :DD" in the immediate future means a lot more carbon footprint for replacing stuff that already works with new supposely more efficient techonology (take into account the carbon footprint from producing stuff).

[Anonymous No.10629432]

>>10629409
I didn't say sun exposure, I said prolonged sun exposure, retard. You then agreed with me by saying you regulate the amount of time you spend swimming. According to your "logic" we should never take precautions for any problem that *may* be solved in the future since such precautions are based on predictions which cannot foresee such solutions. Of course this makes no sense on its face, but you also contradict yourself when you then predict that mitigating global warming will slow human progress. What if we figure out a way to mitigate without slowing down human progress in the future?

You also fail to take into account that the negative consequences of global warming are already slowing human progress. You're the one advocating showing human progress by doing nothing instead of mitigating (which does not mean immediately stopping all carbon emissions).

[Anonymous No.10629440]

>>10629411
>Saying two things are done for the same reason means they're the same
Go back to English 101 and learn how to read.

[Anonymous No.10629447]

>>10629440
>no, you
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.10629459]

>>10629380
The Population Bomb was criticized by many scientists and was never supported by a consensus of evidence. If anything denialism is more analogous to it. Also, climatology is validated by correct predictions, while Erlich is not.

[Anonymous No.10629464]

>>10629447
>pointing out that you failed to address the argument is tu quoque
You are a particularly virulent little /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.10629465]

>>10629421
damn dude the "global warming will kill humanity" algorithm is 100% right, thank you for explaining it to me.

[Anonymous No.10629466]

>>10629465
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.10629468]

>>10629459
Yes, this graph can be correct and it still doesn't mean anything. It's the extrapolation from this that is unfounded.

[Anonymous No.10629471]

>>10629418
>solve 1+1=x or shut up
>no 2 isn't the answer so deal with it

[Anonymous No.10629478]

>>10627768
Let me tell you why "97% of scientists agree" has less meaning than you thought.
1. All sciences based on conducting experiments necessitate a fluency in statistics. Most scientists do not like statistics and haven't done their due diligence to make sure they know enough about statistics to be inferring anything from their experiments. This has manifested itself as a crisis of reproducibility in certain fields (most prominently, psychology). I'm of the opinion that all scientists should be statisticians first. It's too easy to absolutely suck at statistics - there's much more to it than a five number summary and p-values.
2. Experiment-based science does not prove anything. All "facts," "laws," etc. about the world are guesses with differing levels of supporting evidence, but they're all in a perpetual state of waiting to be disproved. Once they are, we adopt newer models, and perhaps keep the old models around for simple cases or instruction. Moreover, the majority consensus has often been wrong before.
3. There is a very real pressure to produce certain results when publishing papers. Perhaps a scientist wants funding, notoriety, or simply to get through that PhD program they regret taking on. This is a more nuanced issue than "conspiracies and propaganda" but it's an issue affecting what we see nonetheless.
It seems obvious that the climate is changing, and it's likely that we've had a noticeable effect on that process. It's also likely that most people who "deny" man's effect on climate change don't deny it for good understanding of any of the reasons I outlined above. But please, for your sake, be a little more skeptical.

[Anonymous No.10629479]

>>10629468
The extrapolation is, things continuing this way would be bad, therefore we should not allow things to continue this way. Appealing to the chance of some unknown solution in the future makes no sense when you have a solution right now.

[Anonymous No.10630311]

>>10627768
When the government offers 1 millon dollars to a (fake) scientist to lie about man-made global warming then of course he will lie about it.
He will make fake statistics.
He will say density of CO2 is smaller then the air's density.
He will say when a cow farts it leads to global warming.

[Anonymous No.10630322]

Its funny how the media goes bonkers about anthropogenic climate change, but is completely silent about semitogenic population change, which is a much bigger threat to me and my family.

[Anonymous No.10630328]

>>10630311
I don't get it, what's the problem with regulating cow farts? Livestock co2 emissions are not trivial

[Anonymous No.10630526]

>>10630322
Dude.

[Anonymous No.10630528]

>>10630322

Exactly.

>Hey look over here!! The climate might rise 1 fucking degree in 30 years
>Btw ignore the massive demographic changes happening in your country that have brought several other empires to their knees in the past

[Anonymous No.10630532]

So, I can't find the source, but is there any truth to the people who say shit like we have 135 months to reduce all carbon or extinction is inevitable?

Also, I am not very good with atmospheric science, but could the added CO2 and other emissions lead to permanent changes in the atmosphere, like allowing more UV, degradation of ozone, etc?

[Anonymous No.10630567]

>>10630311
So Trump is paying people to lie about global warming?

[Anonymous No.10630569]

>>10627768
Muh sociology teacher said it had to do with a fear-factor or some shit. Said it was easier to call it fake and deny it than admitting to it.

[Anonymous No.10630584]

>>10630569
yep.
> "someone will fix it, or we will change."
> at the same time does nothing to change their lifestyle to help.

It far easier to live the life you are accustomed to and die before the effects affect you that grow a pair and actually do shit about it.

Ultimately, fake or real, over-extrapolated or not, this shit is happening. The drastic changes Humans have put on their environment does not come without consequence.

It is a collective action problem, but you can still make a choice to do something or not.

For me, it's voting, vote local or at least get this shit on people's minds.

[Anonymous No.10630598]

>>10630567
Pretty much yeah.

[Anonymous No.10630616]

>>10630532
We don't know yet how bad it is going to be because all the models assume linear warming, but in reality there are many feedback effects that induce non-linear (faster) warming which makes the whole issue much more dangerous and unpredictable.

The linear models are already bad, by themselves. So predictions are from bad (significant decrease in living standards) to catastrophic (we don't really know but like war and famine and collapse of countries and governments).

[Anonymous No.10630628]

>>10627981
No.
All those things are all vaporware and in any case just as politically unfeasabile as any other proposed action on climate change.

The most realistic action is to immediately reduce all GHG emissions to as low as possible and invest in climate change mitigation to protect our asses from the bad shit that is pretty much inevitable now.
Maybe in a few decades carbon capture will become a reality but not right now.

[Anonymous No.10630690]

>>10630616
>We don't know yet how bad it is going to be because all the models assume linear warming, but in reality there are many feedback effects that induce non-linear (faster) warming which makes the whole issue much more dangerous and unpredictable.
Completely wrong. Even the simplest models use radiative forcing, which scales logarithmically with CO2 concentration, and climate sensitivity representing the effects of the various feedbacks, multiplying radiative forcing. Typical models (GCMs) are much more complex. Don't post if you're just going to make things up.

[Anonymous No.10630811]

>>10629418
Nice strawman, retard

[Anonymous No.10630816]

>>10630628
I just can't believe that more people are fucking freaking out about this. Like, do you not understand we are all killing ourselves, driving ourselves to extinction all because

>me me need my dead cow me want to go fast me want plane me want no vote for the scary people say I die soon

[Anonymous No.10630905]

>>10630816

We will die anyways. The earth is doomed, and the universe will also die.

[Anonymous No.10630943]

>>10630905
you should probably kill yourself then since it’ll happen eventually anyway

[Anonymous No.10630969]

>>10630905

I mean yeah, but why live with that outlook?

>nihilism hurr durr

Why not try and improve life? fuck it right?

[Anonymous No.10631463]

>>10630322
>semitogenic population change

[Anonymous No.10631465]

>>10630311
Oh god, a toilet paper USA chud

[Anonymous No.10632648]

>>10627768
Why are the direct environmental effects of agriculture (+soil erosion), deforestation and pollution undermined and largely ignored over the indirect effects of global warming? It's worrisome especially given how solving the former would increase carbon fixation and alleviate GW. But the real answer is that global warming is easier to tax.