6 ms·

Do they really though? I am from the UK and I see it on the news, read it in the newspapers that some elected official comes out with (what I am assuming is the

Do they really though? I am from the UK and I see it on the news, read it in the newspapers that some elected official comes out with (what I am assuming is the party line) "Climate change is unknown, the science is undecided, humans have no part to play in the change in climate".... But surely, they don't "believe" it. They must be somewhat educated to get elected to office. Surely they see the evidence of 97 scientists saying "yes" and 3 saying "no" who all have ties to big oil. There is no debate about it any more, the scientific is as close to unanimous on the answer as it is possible to get. How can they possibly deny it? Is it purely political? Is it bribes - sorry lobbying - money that blinds them? Is it religion? Is it just ignorance. I just cannot get my head round it. There is no other comparable country with the same view that I am aware.

danbruc 10y ago
Look at religious people. Among them are a lot of educated people and scientist, even if proportionally less than in the general population. Humans have quite some capacity to hold conflicting ideas without to much worries, just don't think too much about it.
Melk 10y ago
What politicians believe is irrelevant. They are salesmen paid to hold one opinion or the other. Do other intelligent and educated conservatives deny climate change? Yes. Look up the smart idiot effect.
the-dude 10y ago
Where do the other 97 scientist get their money? Are you sure their ties are neutral?
didgeoridoo 10y ago
There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable. 1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale. 2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects. 3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation. 4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today. One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them. What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...
mistermann 10y ago
I've read that the 97% statistic isn't accurate, for example: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-... Personally, my perception is that it is much, much, much warmer now than when I was a child 40 years ago, and I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to on the subject that disagrees. And yet: https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3 https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3 Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)).
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  ...and yet all ice on the planet is melting irreversibly. Permafrost is slumping and dumping CO2-bearing silt into watersheds in quantities unseen in human history. Siberia has melted, the first time since the Mastodon roamed the plains. Flooding and drought are oscillating outside all recorded norms. We can probably stop philosophizing about 'when I was young' etc.
- danbruc 10y ago
  Because the temperature change is accelerating, the increase is concentrated towards the end of the period. But much more importantly, an increase of the global average temperature by X°C does not mean that it is more or less exactly X°C warmer everywhere every time. Changes are concentrated in time and space. I could also imagine quite well that the perception gets distorted. One may be much less likely to notice a change from 24°C plus or minus 1°C in summer than to notice that there is less time with snow because the temperature that used to be just below freezing point got pushed just slightly above it. Especially in places where the temperature used to hover just around freezing point for a long time, even a pretty small increase in temperature might easily shorten the perceived duration of winter as indicated by snow lying around by weeks. I also wonder whether growing up on itself makes a difference. Time speeds up as we grow older and a meter of snow looks certainly very different to me today than it look to me when I was a small child.

danbruc 10y ago

Look at religious people. Among them are a lot of educated people and scientist, even if proportionally less than in the general population. Humans have quite some capacity to hold conflicting ideas without to much worries, just don't think too much about it.

Melk 10y ago

What politicians believe is irrelevant. They are salesmen paid to hold one opinion or the other. Do other intelligent and educated conservatives deny climate change? Yes. Look up the smart idiot effect.

the-dude 10y ago

Where do the other 97 scientist get their money? Are you sure their ties are neutral?

didgeoridoo 10y ago

There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable. 1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale. 2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects. 3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation. 4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today. One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them. What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...

mistermann 10y ago

I've read that the 97% statistic isn't accurate, for example: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-... Personally, my perception is that it is much, much, much warmer now than when I was a child 40 years ago, and I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to on the subject that disagrees. And yet: https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3 https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3 Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)).

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
...and yet all ice on the planet is melting irreversibly. Permafrost is slumping and dumping CO2-bearing silt into watersheds in quantities unseen in human history. Siberia has melted, the first time since the Mastodon roamed the plains. Flooding and drought are oscillating outside all recorded norms. We can probably stop philosophizing about 'when I was young' etc.
danbruc 10y ago
Because the temperature change is accelerating, the increase is concentrated towards the end of the period. But much more importantly, an increase of the global average temperature by X°C does not mean that it is more or less exactly X°C warmer everywhere every time. Changes are concentrated in time and space. I could also imagine quite well that the perception gets distorted. One may be much less likely to notice a change from 24°C plus or minus 1°C in summer than to notice that there is less time with snow because the temperature that used to be just below freezing point got pushed just slightly above it. Especially in places where the temperature used to hover just around freezing point for a long time, even a pretty small increase in temperature might easily shorten the perceived duration of winter as indicated by snow lying around by weeks. I also wonder whether growing up on itself makes a difference. Time speeds up as we grow older and a meter of snow looks certainly very different to me today than it look to me when I was a small child.