10 ms·

"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they wo

"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they would be very upset.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
I’m a climate change denier. A lot of us keep our opinions to ourselves, mostly because we know we don’t know enough about it. Articles like these help change my mind. Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk. Point is, condescending remarks only push people away from your cause. Why would you want to do that?
- monktastic1 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. Why deny something that you claim not to know enough about?
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    Heh. Well, since you asked... There's a distressing pattern: the idea that "man made climate change exists, therefore disaster." The "disaster" part is the part I've never truly been able to convince myself of. I don't deny it -- you're right, it's more along the lines of agnosticism. But I think it's really easy to convince yourself of doom. However, striving to be something resembling a scientist, I recognize that being ignorant is no defense. I haven't spent enough time researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments. But every time I see a piece like this pop up, I feel this reflexive urge to question people and chase down the logic: Ok, climate change exists. How do you know we need to care? I'm not saying we don't. I just wish people would admit "We don't really know, but it would be a good idea to take a few precautionary steps" rather than take the stance of "you're something close to Satan if you dare believe otherwise."
    - RaketenStadt 5y ago
      > I’m a climate change denier > I don't deny it So, you're not a climate change denier
      - mrfusion 5y ago
        To be fair, everyone gets put in the denier bucket if they question any part of the narrative. (Disclaimer: I’m not a denier)
    - pavlov 5y ago
      > "I just wish people would admit 'We don't really know, but it would be a good idea to take a few precautionary steps'" That was a reasonable stance in the 1970s. We have a ton more evidence now.
    - monktastic1 5y ago
      I'm still having a hard time with this. You say you don't know, and from that you conclude that nobody else does either? > I just wish people would admit "We don't really know" Surely somebody has spent time "researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments"? Why are you so sure they should "admit" that they don't really know? Especially when so many have come out and said that they do?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonAndOn 5y ago
      You might be too young to know, but there were some famous holdouts living around Mt. St Helens in 1980.[0] They didn't believe any of the "stupid scientists" knew if the volcano was going to erupt. The holdouts are only famous because they are dead. [0]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/05/17/mount-st-helens-people-stayed/27311467/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/05/17/mo...
    - ajnin 5y ago
      > How do you know we need to care? The temperature difference between now and the last ice age, at a time there was 3km of ice over much of the northern hemisphere, and sea level was 120 below current average, was 5°C. Current predictions for the temperature increase in 2100 range from 2°C, if we make a huge effort to quickly and drastically reduce CO2 emissions, to 5°C if we keep going as we are. The reality will be somewhere between, I'll let you decide what you think is likely. We don't know exactly what the consequences are gonna be, but we know they're going to be dramatic, and if you think they won't affect you personally, you're probably wrong.
  - warent 5y ago
    Isn't that the default stance in philosophy? Assume something is false until evidence proven true. You cannot begin with the assumption that something is true, otherwise we're back to the mystical dark ages of magic monsters and alchemy
    - vkou 5y ago
      > Assume something is false until evidence proven true. This cuts both ways, depending how your phrase the assumption. Which of these statements should we assume false, until proven true: "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." Philosophy isn't going to rescue us from this. Climate science will.
    - anotherman554 5y ago
      I don't think this is correct. Philosophies vary but philosophy of knowledge deals with how you can know something. The opposite of knowing something isn't assuming it is false.
    - monktastic1 5y ago
      Assuming that something is false isn't the same as denying it.
    - genericuser314 5y ago
      Maybe you're thinking of Russell's teapot, which is the idea that the burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims? That's specifically for unfalsifiable claims. Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed. The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions. I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
- orf 5y ago
  Let me guess, you’re American?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- diffset 5y ago
  If you want evidence of widespread upheaval, just look at California's weather data over the past few decades. It's consistently gotten hotter and dryer, causing more and more fires that are killing hundreds of people per year and destroying entire towns. It's not about believing in climate change, it's about *understanding* it. It's very real. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wildfires-and-Climate-Change-California’s-Energy-Future.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wildfires-...
  - ipsum2 5y ago
    Blaming climate change for California wildfires is a neat way to deflect the real cause: forest mismanagement. See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l... From 2018: > During its review, the Commission found that California’s forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire. https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-management-sierra-nevada https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-ma...
    - kevinpet 5y ago
      Yep, and when I read those kinds of claims I think "this is what advocates for specific interventions around climate change believe is causation, therefore, they don't know what they're talking about"
  - krona 5y ago
    I took the time to read the PDF you linked to and in terms of actual evidence all I found was a some hand-wavy article by a German reinsurance company. Surely there is some better evidence than this?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  What I think is really weird is the high level of correlation between the presence of the beliefs that it's not happening and that it doesn't matter if it is. Those are two separate questions that are almost completely distinct in terms of what facts lead to them, and they overlap only at the point where they both recommend no action against climate change. Yet, it is very common for people who believe the first to end up believing the second after the first is shown not to be true. I think this might be because some cultural leaders start from "don't do anything" and work backwards, creating a correlation in their followers and indirect followers between all otherwise unrelated beliefs that imply nothing should be done.
  - jjj123 5y ago
    From what I’ve seen you’re right, but I think it’s a case of incentives distorting people’s beliefs. I would assume there’s also a correlation between the “don’t do anything about climate change” folks and limited government/capitalist beliefs. All of those beliefs seem distinct but they all have aligned incentives to keep the economic status quo. I’m not trying to be condescending towards that side either, I know it’s true for myself too. I generally support change that shifts power away from the powerful, so I was always going to support something like the green new deal over a privatized solution. Edited for clarity
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    "It's happening" and the effects attributable to humans burning fossil fuels is a scale though. There's very little doubt C02 does increase the holding of heat. There's also very little doubt the earth has gotten slightly warmer over the past century. Where I become skeptical is in the modeling and predictions. More heat means more evaporation means more cloud cover means less heat but clouds hold heat held in. The earth tilts slightly on it's axis. Energy output from the sun varies. There are so many interacting factors. "Butterfly effect" and all. Then you throw politics and redistribution-ism and media sensationalism on top of it all and wow what a stinky mess. Suffice it to say I personally don't think global catastrophe is imminent from C02. Not convinced at all. I lived through the ice age scare (here's Leonard Nimoy talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0) and the start of the global warming alarm in the late 80's (which just didn't pan out as many expected 30+ years later). So I don't trust the ability to model long term climate changes and present it in an objective and non political fashion. But I do believe humans are affecting the climate and from caution we should reduce C02 as we reasonably can without starving millions to death. It's cleaner anyway and fossil fuels are just nasty in other respects and they are limited. Am I an illiterate unscientific "denier"? An oil company shill? Nope. Just a guy who has seen nonsense hype cycles which this certainly resembles come and go.
- mousepilot 5y ago
  I listen to experts then try to judge the experts credibility. This goes to listening to the sources of climate change believers and unbelievers. What sort of people believe climate change is real? What sort of people don't believe it? Also, what evidence does each side present, and how credible is this evidence? Just relating what I do.
  - clifdweller 5y ago
    This is one of the worst things about climate science as it currently stands. In General new theories are often looked about with skepticism until an experiment exists to satisfy the majority. Chemists in the early 1800s theorized matter was made of atoms but it wasn't until experiments were developed early 1900s and math worked on by Einstein got the whole community on board. Similarly we are still in a undecided state of what follows Newtonian-> relativism-> quantum mechanics. None are fully right but which is "more" right. each has their set of experiments that have been proven true or false. Climate science has very little proof because in the short time we have studied it most results cannot yet be proven to be correlation or causation. Unfortunately proof may not come for hundreds of years. The current route has been to take hypothesis and spin them as proof. I think the better route would be to split the theoretical and practical of climate change. we may not know for a long time if it is CO2 vs deforestation vs urbanization if we need to fix one or all to stop our impact/ if it will be enough at that point but that is separate from here are the impacts we see and best guess of what we will see in next 40-100 years and what can we possibly do about it. What if einstein chose not to release relativity because he knew it wasn't perfect or we ignored quantum mechanics because of it holes that are just now starting to be understood.
    - mousepilot 5y ago
      Climate change is one of those problems that you can't solve with experiments and controls, we'd have to have a test planet earth and run 200 year experiments or something lol
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  The question of the impact of climate change on humans seems to me a separate one from the observable reality of climate change and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which is a more tangible data question. It seems odd to describe yourself as a "denier" unless you mean you reject the actual science itself. And if you do, the question of whether it "matters" seems not at all important given that you reject it is happening at all. Or am I misunderstanding you? I guess I'm not sure what you're denying, observable reality or your perception of the projections made from that reality.
  - swader999 5y ago
    For me, I'm sure the climate is changing, partly because of human activity. Where I differ is that I think the impacts of the changing climate will be so small and gradual and so easy to adapt to that it doesn't warrant the massive upheaval to economies that are being prescribed.
    - AutumnCurtain 5y ago
      Would you say that you believe Samoa or the Maldives, for example, should anticipate a small and gradual change in climate that doesn't warrant a massive upheaval in their economy?
      - swader999 5y ago
        I honestly think they'll be fine too.
    - ajnin 5y ago
      I'm curious: current trends predict that the temperature increase from the pre-industrial age to 2100 might be as much as it was from the last ice age (look it up, it was a very different time). And this will happen roughly within 200 years, not 20 000. What makes you think this will be small and easy to adapt to ?
      - swader999 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- clircle 5y ago
  I'm not a climate change denier, but I'm not sure if climate change is man-made. I believe the climate invariable changes, my issue is that we cannot determine the fraction of this variation that is due to human interference.
  - clifdweller 5y ago
    It's true there really isn't any proof we have done all of it or how much is from cO2 as to more general urbanization/deforestation; but that should be left to theoretical science and could take hundreds of years to figure out. In meantime does it hurt to make the assumption we are the factor pushing climate over edge and start to prepare methods to deal with it?
    - clircle 5y ago
      I have no idea. That requires policy, economics, decision analysis, and (probably) more convincing evidence that we are near an edge. Again, I think the climate is changing. And I think it will continue to change in ways that adversely affect humanity.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Point is, condescending remarks only push people away from your cause. Thanks for the honesty. Here's some more. Some of us don't care about your feelings at this point. It is past time for talking. There are always people with perverse incentives, or deeply held beliefs or grudges, who are unreachable. Screw 'em, it is time for action. If they want to argue, they can argue with each other.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    "Screw 'em" sounds like an end unto itself, especially when climate justice demands the least influential people to embrace poverty.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    You can care about other's opinions and feelings or not but you only damage yourself in the end if you don't because they don't go away with "well I'm right!". Good luck on your "action". Isn't going to be much in the end I'd wager and the experiment will play out. Fortunately for all of us the end effects on humanity are probably well over stated.
- throwaway413 5y ago
  Just want to stop and say that I’m so happy to have stumbled across sillysaurus today. You helped me through a very hard time in my life a few years back, and I have thought about you often since then. Thank you. Glad to see you back here!
- brummm 5y ago
  I think condescending really is the wrong approach to people that have crazy beliefs like climate change deniers, holocaust deniers and anti-vaxxers. These are people that choose to believe in something dogmatic that is absolutely not covered by facts and no rational discussion will be able to convince them otherwise. In my opinion, people should be less accepting of stupidity like this. There are opinions that should not be accepted so condescension is the wrong approach, rejection and ostracization are the ones that are right in my opinion.
- ashayh 5y ago
  What if there is no climate emergency .. and we reduced fossil fuel pollution & improved air quality for all, stopped destroying forests, rivers, lakes and oceans, stopped the massive decline in fish & animal species, reduced drought by restoring the water tables, reduced drinking water pollution etc etc .. all for nothing? https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainability/what-if-its-a-big-hoax-and-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing-5ef4a30cca48 https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Capping CO2 released may reduce air pollution due to burning, but it won't do very much about the water tables, except by improving the climate.
  - lovecg 5y ago
    That’s cute but it should also list “what if we kept developing countries in poverty (by denying quick and dirty industrialization that we ourselves enjoyed) for nothing”. The problem is hard because there are hard decisions to make.
  - loopz 5y ago
    What was lost then? What didn't we lose? Do you require water to function? How about food?
- nikhilsimha 5y ago
  I contend that you are not a denier. If you are convinced that there is an abnormal trend, caused by human activity, but are not too concerned with the trend - you are simply not an alarmist. I too, wouldn't be concerned if cherry blossoms missed a season. The problem IMHO is, the climate science community doesn't connect the dots between warming -> unstable weather -> widespread upheaval.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they would be very upset.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

I’m a climate change denier. A lot of us keep our opinions to ourselves, mostly because we know we don’t know enough about it. Articles like these help change my mind. Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk. Point is, condescending remarks only push people away from your cause. Why would you want to do that?

monktastic1 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand. Why deny something that you claim not to know enough about?
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Heh. Well, since you asked... There's a distressing pattern: the idea that "man made climate change exists, therefore disaster." The "disaster" part is the part I've never truly been able to convince myself of. I don't deny it -- you're right, it's more along the lines of agnosticism. But I think it's really easy to convince yourself of doom. However, striving to be something resembling a scientist, I recognize that being ignorant is no defense. I haven't spent enough time researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments. But every time I see a piece like this pop up, I feel this reflexive urge to question people and chase down the logic: Ok, climate change exists. How do you know we need to care? I'm not saying we don't. I just wish people would admit "We don't really know, but it would be a good idea to take a few precautionary steps" rather than take the stance of "you're something close to Satan if you dare believe otherwise."
  - RaketenStadt 5y ago
    > I’m a climate change denier > I don't deny it So, you're not a climate change denier
    - mrfusion 5y ago
      To be fair, everyone gets put in the denier bucket if they question any part of the narrative. (Disclaimer: I’m not a denier)
  - pavlov 5y ago
    > "I just wish people would admit 'We don't really know, but it would be a good idea to take a few precautionary steps'" That was a reasonable stance in the 1970s. We have a ton more evidence now.
  - monktastic1 5y ago
    I'm still having a hard time with this. You say you don't know, and from that you conclude that nobody else does either? > I just wish people would admit "We don't really know" Surely somebody has spent time "researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments"? Why are you so sure they should "admit" that they don't really know? Especially when so many have come out and said that they do?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonAndOn 5y ago
    You might be too young to know, but there were some famous holdouts living around Mt. St Helens in 1980.[0] They didn't believe any of the "stupid scientists" knew if the volcano was going to erupt. The holdouts are only famous because they are dead. [0]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/05/17/mount-st-helens-people-stayed/27311467/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/05/17/mo...
  - ajnin 5y ago
    > How do you know we need to care? The temperature difference between now and the last ice age, at a time there was 3km of ice over much of the northern hemisphere, and sea level was 120 below current average, was 5°C. Current predictions for the temperature increase in 2100 range from 2°C, if we make a huge effort to quickly and drastically reduce CO2 emissions, to 5°C if we keep going as we are. The reality will be somewhere between, I'll let you decide what you think is likely. We don't know exactly what the consequences are gonna be, but we know they're going to be dramatic, and if you think they won't affect you personally, you're probably wrong.
- warent 5y ago
  Isn't that the default stance in philosophy? Assume something is false until evidence proven true. You cannot begin with the assumption that something is true, otherwise we're back to the mystical dark ages of magic monsters and alchemy
  - vkou 5y ago
    > Assume something is false until evidence proven true. This cuts both ways, depending how your phrase the assumption. Which of these statements should we assume false, until proven true: "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." Philosophy isn't going to rescue us from this. Climate science will.
  - anotherman554 5y ago
    I don't think this is correct. Philosophies vary but philosophy of knowledge deals with how you can know something. The opposite of knowing something isn't assuming it is false.
  - monktastic1 5y ago
    Assuming that something is false isn't the same as denying it.
  - genericuser314 5y ago
    Maybe you're thinking of Russell's teapot, which is the idea that the burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims? That's specifically for unfalsifiable claims. Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed. The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions. I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
orf 5y ago
Let me guess, you’re American?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
diffset 5y ago
If you want evidence of widespread upheaval, just look at California's weather data over the past few decades. It's consistently gotten hotter and dryer, causing more and more fires that are killing hundreds of people per year and destroying entire towns. It's not about believing in climate change, it's about *understanding* it. It's very real. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wildfires-and-Climate-Change-California’s-Energy-Future.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wildfires-...
- ipsum2 5y ago
  Blaming climate change for California wildfires is a neat way to deflect the real cause: forest mismanagement. See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l... From 2018: > During its review, the Commission found that California’s forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire. https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-management-sierra-nevada https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-ma...
  - kevinpet 5y ago
    Yep, and when I read those kinds of claims I think "this is what advocates for specific interventions around climate change believe is causation, therefore, they don't know what they're talking about"
- krona 5y ago
  I took the time to read the PDF you linked to and in terms of actual evidence all I found was a some hand-wavy article by a German reinsurance company. Surely there is some better evidence than this?
whatshisface 5y ago
What I think is really weird is the high level of correlation between the presence of the beliefs that it's not happening and that it doesn't matter if it is. Those are two separate questions that are almost completely distinct in terms of what facts lead to them, and they overlap only at the point where they both recommend no action against climate change. Yet, it is very common for people who believe the first to end up believing the second after the first is shown not to be true. I think this might be because some cultural leaders start from "don't do anything" and work backwards, creating a correlation in their followers and indirect followers between all otherwise unrelated beliefs that imply nothing should be done.
- jjj123 5y ago
  From what I’ve seen you’re right, but I think it’s a case of incentives distorting people’s beliefs. I would assume there’s also a correlation between the “don’t do anything about climate change” folks and limited government/capitalist beliefs. All of those beliefs seem distinct but they all have aligned incentives to keep the economic status quo. I’m not trying to be condescending towards that side either, I know it’s true for myself too. I generally support change that shifts power away from the powerful, so I was always going to support something like the green new deal over a privatized solution. Edited for clarity
- mythrwy 5y ago
  "It's happening" and the effects attributable to humans burning fossil fuels is a scale though. There's very little doubt C02 does increase the holding of heat. There's also very little doubt the earth has gotten slightly warmer over the past century. Where I become skeptical is in the modeling and predictions. More heat means more evaporation means more cloud cover means less heat but clouds hold heat held in. The earth tilts slightly on it's axis. Energy output from the sun varies. There are so many interacting factors. "Butterfly effect" and all. Then you throw politics and redistribution-ism and media sensationalism on top of it all and wow what a stinky mess. Suffice it to say I personally don't think global catastrophe is imminent from C02. Not convinced at all. I lived through the ice age scare (here's Leonard Nimoy talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0) and the start of the global warming alarm in the late 80's (which just didn't pan out as many expected 30+ years later). So I don't trust the ability to model long term climate changes and present it in an objective and non political fashion. But I do believe humans are affecting the climate and from caution we should reduce C02 as we reasonably can without starving millions to death. It's cleaner anyway and fossil fuels are just nasty in other respects and they are limited. Am I an illiterate unscientific "denier"? An oil company shill? Nope. Just a guy who has seen nonsense hype cycles which this certainly resembles come and go.
mousepilot 5y ago
I listen to experts then try to judge the experts credibility. This goes to listening to the sources of climate change believers and unbelievers. What sort of people believe climate change is real? What sort of people don't believe it? Also, what evidence does each side present, and how credible is this evidence? Just relating what I do.
- clifdweller 5y ago
  This is one of the worst things about climate science as it currently stands. In General new theories are often looked about with skepticism until an experiment exists to satisfy the majority. Chemists in the early 1800s theorized matter was made of atoms but it wasn't until experiments were developed early 1900s and math worked on by Einstein got the whole community on board. Similarly we are still in a undecided state of what follows Newtonian-> relativism-> quantum mechanics. None are fully right but which is "more" right. each has their set of experiments that have been proven true or false. Climate science has very little proof because in the short time we have studied it most results cannot yet be proven to be correlation or causation. Unfortunately proof may not come for hundreds of years. The current route has been to take hypothesis and spin them as proof. I think the better route would be to split the theoretical and practical of climate change. we may not know for a long time if it is CO2 vs deforestation vs urbanization if we need to fix one or all to stop our impact/ if it will be enough at that point but that is separate from here are the impacts we see and best guess of what we will see in next 40-100 years and what can we possibly do about it. What if einstein chose not to release relativity because he knew it wasn't perfect or we ignored quantum mechanics because of it holes that are just now starting to be understood.
  - mousepilot 5y ago
    Climate change is one of those problems that you can't solve with experiments and controls, we'd have to have a test planet earth and run 200 year experiments or something lol
AutumnCurtain 5y ago
The question of the impact of climate change on humans seems to me a separate one from the observable reality of climate change and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which is a more tangible data question. It seems odd to describe yourself as a "denier" unless you mean you reject the actual science itself. And if you do, the question of whether it "matters" seems not at all important given that you reject it is happening at all. Or am I misunderstanding you? I guess I'm not sure what you're denying, observable reality or your perception of the projections made from that reality.
- swader999 5y ago
  For me, I'm sure the climate is changing, partly because of human activity. Where I differ is that I think the impacts of the changing climate will be so small and gradual and so easy to adapt to that it doesn't warrant the massive upheaval to economies that are being prescribed.
  - AutumnCurtain 5y ago
    Would you say that you believe Samoa or the Maldives, for example, should anticipate a small and gradual change in climate that doesn't warrant a massive upheaval in their economy?
    - swader999 5y ago
      I honestly think they'll be fine too.
  - ajnin 5y ago
    I'm curious: current trends predict that the temperature increase from the pre-industrial age to 2100 might be as much as it was from the last ice age (look it up, it was a very different time). And this will happen roughly within 200 years, not 20 000. What makes you think this will be small and easy to adapt to ?
    - swader999 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
clircle 5y ago
I'm not a climate change denier, but I'm not sure if climate change is man-made. I believe the climate invariable changes, my issue is that we cannot determine the fraction of this variation that is due to human interference.
- clifdweller 5y ago
  It's true there really isn't any proof we have done all of it or how much is from cO2 as to more general urbanization/deforestation; but that should be left to theoretical science and could take hundreds of years to figure out. In meantime does it hurt to make the assumption we are the factor pushing climate over edge and start to prepare methods to deal with it?
  - clircle 5y ago
    I have no idea. That requires policy, economics, decision analysis, and (probably) more convincing evidence that we are near an edge. Again, I think the climate is changing. And I think it will continue to change in ways that adversely affect humanity.
_jal 5y ago
> Point is, condescending remarks only push people away from your cause. Thanks for the honesty. Here's some more. Some of us don't care about your feelings at this point. It is past time for talking. There are always people with perverse incentives, or deeply held beliefs or grudges, who are unreachable. Screw 'em, it is time for action. If they want to argue, they can argue with each other.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  "Screw 'em" sounds like an end unto itself, especially when climate justice demands the least influential people to embrace poverty.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  You can care about other's opinions and feelings or not but you only damage yourself in the end if you don't because they don't go away with "well I'm right!". Good luck on your "action". Isn't going to be much in the end I'd wager and the experiment will play out. Fortunately for all of us the end effects on humanity are probably well over stated.
throwaway413 5y ago
Just want to stop and say that I’m so happy to have stumbled across sillysaurus today. You helped me through a very hard time in my life a few years back, and I have thought about you often since then. Thank you. Glad to see you back here!
brummm 5y ago
I think condescending really is the wrong approach to people that have crazy beliefs like climate change deniers, holocaust deniers and anti-vaxxers. These are people that choose to believe in something dogmatic that is absolutely not covered by facts and no rational discussion will be able to convince them otherwise. In my opinion, people should be less accepting of stupidity like this. There are opinions that should not be accepted so condescension is the wrong approach, rejection and ostracization are the ones that are right in my opinion.
ashayh 5y ago
What if there is no climate emergency .. and we reduced fossil fuel pollution & improved air quality for all, stopped destroying forests, rivers, lakes and oceans, stopped the massive decline in fish & animal species, reduced drought by restoring the water tables, reduced drinking water pollution etc etc .. all for nothing? https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainability/what-if-its-a-big-hoax-and-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing-5ef4a30cca48 https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Capping CO2 released may reduce air pollution due to burning, but it won't do very much about the water tables, except by improving the climate.
- lovecg 5y ago
  That’s cute but it should also list “what if we kept developing countries in poverty (by denying quick and dirty industrialization that we ourselves enjoyed) for nothing”. The problem is hard because there are hard decisions to make.
- loopz 5y ago
  What was lost then? What didn't we lose? Do you require water to function? How about food?
nikhilsimha 5y ago
I contend that you are not a denier. If you are convinced that there is an abnormal trend, caused by human activity, but are not too concerned with the trend - you are simply not an alarmist. I too, wouldn't be concerned if cherry blossoms missed a season. The problem IMHO is, the climate science community doesn't connect the dots between warming -> unstable weather -> widespread upheaval.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]