12 ms·

It's ok to want an answer. You may have to accept though (and it seems you're on your way to this) that the answer isn't simple, can't be broken down to a simpl

It's ok to want an answer. You may have to accept though (and it seems you're on your way to this) that the answer isn't simple, can't be broken down to a simple paragraph and can't be digested in a sitting. If you're not content taking the short explanation (e.g. "CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect so our CO2 actually caused the observed global warming.") then you need to accept that you will have to study the models in depth and try to understand what assumptions/approximations were made, why the scientists consider those valid, what data are used and what biases or errors exist and needed to be corrected for and why those are valid, etc. And that's all ok. As long as a person doesn't reject the science outright because they can't understand the work or don't want to put in the effort. But those who reject the science or insist that nothing be done about it until they personally understand it need to either put in the effort to understand it or lend faith to the scientific consensus which has been developed through great effort.

lopmotr 8y ago
Yes, if you don't understand it and won't study it, then the best bet is to side with the scientists. The trouble is, that's almost everyone. It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen.
- bonesss 8y ago
  > It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen. Bull-hooey. If you're genuinely interested you only have to understand the difference between climate and weather, the time scales involved (decades, not years), the limitations of models vis-a-vis spot-predictions, and wrap your head around the nuance between "change" and "rate of change" (ie speed vs acceleration). That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... If you're mentally flexible enough to get that the problem isn't that pendulums swing, but that a fast swinging pendulum could be Very Bad for our civilization, climate change rests on three straightforward principles and observations: 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there Of the 8 planets in this solar system, 1 of them has had its climate go into overdrive and now resembles biblical Hell. Human activity will never push things that far, but we'd talking about the end of mankind well before that point... Climate change is not impenetrable to laymen. Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. Totally coincidental: oil company marketing triangulation has pointed out for years that they don't have to convince anyone on climate change, they just have to extend the debate past the point of action. It worked.
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    > That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... Actually, most of the "skeptics" that I've seen online are right on top of this kind of stuff! It's the other side that just wants to hand-wave away far too many things. > 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light If you want to have some "fun", go track down a full spectrum chart of sunlight and how carbon dioxide and water vapor and such absorb that sunlight. Pay particular attention to the infrared band, which is very large. What do you see? As to your aquarium example, some years back a "skeptic" once very publicly tried to replicate a similar experiment - one that was claimed to have been done many times and which clearly showed the greenhouse effect of CO2. Only it didn't replicate as described, as I recall, implying that the example itself may very well be bogus. Also, IIRC, another group ran a similar experiment sometime later and claimed a positive result. Except that even a layman like myself could clearly see that their experiment was very poorly controlled, and not nearly as cleanly run as the first one. So while they happily claimed a successful replication, in fact they never actually proved nor disproved anything, as far as I could tell. > 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough This includes water vapor, perhaps the most powerful and important of all the greenhouse gases on Earth. Yet for some reason this is almost completely ignored by the anti-CO2 crowd. > 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there If you want to have some more "fun", go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus, which is very hot. And while you're at it, go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Mars, which is quite cold - cold enough that the CO2 actually freezes out of the air there on a regular basis. Tell me what you find. > Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. So it's 50 years now, is it? Seems a little long to me but whatever. What's important here is that this is another claim of "FUD", no doubt directed at the fossil-fuel industry. But IMO claims that this are often made less to point out "the truth of the matter" (in their opinion) and are instead usually more of a cheap-shot attempt to convince folks not to listen to the points being made by the other side (or to try and justify their own refusal to listen), which often call out glaring weaknesses in the overall argument.

lopmotr 8y ago

Yes, if you don't understand it and won't study it, then the best bet is to side with the scientists. The trouble is, that's almost everyone. It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen.

bonesss 8y ago
> It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen. Bull-hooey. If you're genuinely interested you only have to understand the difference between climate and weather, the time scales involved (decades, not years), the limitations of models vis-a-vis spot-predictions, and wrap your head around the nuance between "change" and "rate of change" (ie speed vs acceleration). That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... If you're mentally flexible enough to get that the problem isn't that pendulums swing, but that a fast swinging pendulum could be Very Bad for our civilization, climate change rests on three straightforward principles and observations: 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there Of the 8 planets in this solar system, 1 of them has had its climate go into overdrive and now resembles biblical Hell. Human activity will never push things that far, but we'd talking about the end of mankind well before that point... Climate change is not impenetrable to laymen. Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. Totally coincidental: oil company marketing triangulation has pointed out for years that they don't have to convince anyone on climate change, they just have to extend the debate past the point of action. It worked.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  > That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... Actually, most of the "skeptics" that I've seen online are right on top of this kind of stuff! It's the other side that just wants to hand-wave away far too many things. > 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light If you want to have some "fun", go track down a full spectrum chart of sunlight and how carbon dioxide and water vapor and such absorb that sunlight. Pay particular attention to the infrared band, which is very large. What do you see? As to your aquarium example, some years back a "skeptic" once very publicly tried to replicate a similar experiment - one that was claimed to have been done many times and which clearly showed the greenhouse effect of CO2. Only it didn't replicate as described, as I recall, implying that the example itself may very well be bogus. Also, IIRC, another group ran a similar experiment sometime later and claimed a positive result. Except that even a layman like myself could clearly see that their experiment was very poorly controlled, and not nearly as cleanly run as the first one. So while they happily claimed a successful replication, in fact they never actually proved nor disproved anything, as far as I could tell. > 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough This includes water vapor, perhaps the most powerful and important of all the greenhouse gases on Earth. Yet for some reason this is almost completely ignored by the anti-CO2 crowd. > 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there If you want to have some more "fun", go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus, which is very hot. And while you're at it, go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Mars, which is quite cold - cold enough that the CO2 actually freezes out of the air there on a regular basis. Tell me what you find. > Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. So it's 50 years now, is it? Seems a little long to me but whatever. What's important here is that this is another claim of "FUD", no doubt directed at the fossil-fuel industry. But IMO claims that this are often made less to point out "the truth of the matter" (in their opinion) and are instead usually more of a cheap-shot attempt to convince folks not to listen to the points being made by the other side (or to try and justify their own refusal to listen), which often call out glaring weaknesses in the overall argument.