3 ms·
I'm sure I'll get flak for this. I'm not a climate change 'denier', but I'm sure I'll be called that by some. In fact, I 'believe' in climate change, meaning th
by meretext 7y ago
I'm sure I'll get flak for this. I'm not a climate change 'denier', but I'm sure I'll be called that by some. In fact, I 'believe' in climate change, meaning that the climate is changing. Because I believe the climate is always changing. When people use the term "climate change" these days, they (IMO) assume that the climate has been steady state for millennia until recently (last 50 years?), and that it's only been changing recently, that it's a sudden thing, and that it's all our fault.
The climate has changed, waxed and waned many, many times over the ages. There was an ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago. There was a warming period, followed by a cooling period in the middle ages (search Little Ice Age on wikipedia). Where were all the carbon emissions then? There's plenty of evidence that the climate changes all the time, and there is no 'normal' climate, no 'set point' where it is 'supposed' to be at -- that's simply not how climate works. We don't really know how it works, all of the factors involved. But there is no specific set point that the climate is 'supposed' to get to and maintain. What kind of silliness is that?
Yes it is changing, getting warmer, but there's a lot of scare mongering going on that we're at fault, and I don't think we've figured that out yet. Who's to say it won't start cooling off again sooner or later? If you're old enough to remember, in the 1970s (and maybe 1980s) we were scare mongering over the coming ice age, a global cooling that was going to freeze us all out. How ironic we're now in the midst of the opposite.
I will say that one very positive thing about all the scare mongering is that we're pouring money into clean fuels and methods, which is brilliant -- we should have been doing that all along, and if it takes some fear to push that, great.
For those who condemn people like me who aren't convinced that the warming trend is all our fault, be very careful about your science. Just because 4 out of 5 scientists or 99% of scientists agree or believe climate change is happening (it is) and that it's our fault (that's not clear yet), doesn't make it true. The number of people who believe in God doesn't improve God's chances of existing, any more than the number of athiests who disbelieve in God makes God disappear. Belief is not reality. Belief is belief. Reality is reality. The two are not the same, and they are not related or dependent on each other in any way. But too many of us get hijacked by our beliefs and go nuts because we think it's realty.
Also understand that one published study is regurgitated with the same sensational headlines in 1,000 or more news outlets, making it 'appear' that there is a consensus of all these news outlets. No, it's the same piece of news, sensationalized and then repeated a thousand times over, not a 1,000 different news outlets reporting on a 1,000 different, separate studies that all came to the same conclusion. We have some serious mental biases that come from repetition -- stop watching the news! (How many news stations report how many planes landed safely? None. How many report the one plane crash that happened? All of them, in gory detail.)
Recall that cholesterol used to be the big threat to our health these past 40+ years. Surprise! We're now finding out over the past few years that it ain't so. A whole generation or two of scientists had to pass on before we got to today where cholesterol is not considered a cause of CHD. Back in the 'fat and cholesterol cause CHD', you didn't get your science funded if you weren't taking that position as truth, and if your research wasn't geared towards proving exactly that. Go read up on how Alzheimer's research has been stymied for decades because scientists refused to accept that the beta amaloids were a symptom of the disease, and not its cause.
Be careful of the agendas of those who say climate change isn't happening. But also be wary of those who claim to know that it is, and that it's all our fault -- they have their own agendas.
And when anyone, especially a scientist, says "the science is settled", you are now in the realm of a dogmatic religion, closed-minded to any evidence that contradicts the belief in the 'faith'.
So, climate getting warmer? Seems to be, yes. Carbon emissions causing it? Hmm. Not so sure yet. Humans causing it? Again, no clear cut evidence that shows how this warming period is due to us that explains how all the other warming periods came about that weren't us. Will it never cool off again? No one knows, but it's done so in the past, so the balance of probabilities is yes. Unless we really are the cause, and there's a tipping point where we can never see a reversal, and we pass that point. Sure, it's possible. It's also possible we'll be struck by an enormous chunk of rock that wipes out the human race, which I think is a serious threat, but for which we don't seem to be putting a lot of energy and funding into providing early warning and a means to do something about it.
Whether we are to blame or not for the warming climate (as of today), I hope the hysteria continues for another decade or two -- the motivation it provides for developing cleaner energies and products won't likely happen otherwise, just like had we not had the Cold War, the space race would not have happened, and we'd not have landed on the Moon. (Sorry, moon-landing deniers. It really happened.)
- syllable_studio 7y agohi @meretext, thanks for engaging in this dialog, I appreciate you taking the time. This is really interesting to me. You're clearly smart and passionate about this. And it sounds like you are an evidence-based thinker. It sounds like maybe you've been bombarded with a lot of media but maybe haven't been given very good evidence, does that sound right? For example, what do you make of this chart shown on the nasa.gov page? It shows the cycles that you're talking about, but then it shows how our situation is incredibly different from any other cycles over thousands of years. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ So given evidence like that, what is your reaction? (I'm really not trying to convince you or troll you or anything, I'd love to learn more about how you think and what your arguments are). Do you think that the information isn't convincing or that it's a conspiracy? Do you feel certain that human-made climate change isn't real, or are you skeptical but open to the idea? I'm also open to the idea that climate change is NOT real if I was confronted with compelling evidence. Though, I just haven't seen any so far... Last question if you'll allow me: Do you think there's a chance that climate change could be a disaster? If so, do you think it's worth doing something about it? Or at least confirming whether or not it is real? Or do you feel convinced that there is nothing to worry about? Thanks again, Eric
- meretext 7y agoIf you're going to make me work, I'm going to make you think. There are seven (7) issues I've identified with the graph you provided as evidence. See if you can identify those same issues. Find and download the study that the graph on the https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ page that you provided says it is based on. It's short, four pages. I downloaded, printed and hand-annotated the study, scanned it in and I will provide a link to the study with my annotations after. I will also answer all of the questions you've asked me, again, after. Promise. Here's the link to the unannotated study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949 or the PDF version, which I prefer: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949.pdf Good hunting! /s.
- 7y ago