17 ms·

Who still believes global warming does not exist? I am currently listening to audiobook of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (1998). It has a paragraph on global warmin

Who still believes global warming does not exist? I am currently listening to audiobook of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (1998). It has a paragraph on global warming and trying to convince POTUS it is real. And POTUS not wanting to act on it because it would be too large economic drag on US. This book is almost quarter of century old.

spapas82 5y ago
About this, what was very puzzling to me was the opinions of the late Michael Chrichton. He was constantly expressing the opinion that the global warming was a frame up, both in his books but also to various talks. He had even written a book on which the bad guys were Greenpeace agents! Now, considering how highly educated (not only he was a great author but he also had studied MD) and smart (this should be obvious to anybody that has read his books and watched over his career) he was, it means a lot to me that this person had these beliefs. Also the fact that he is not related to the field so he doesn't have anything to gain by believing and advocating these opinions makes the fact even more important. As I said I am really puzzled about that. Does anybody has more information to shade a light on that?
- matthewmcg 5y ago
  Maybe I've spent too much time among lawyers, but I have noticed that there are some very smart people that seem to relish having certain unconventional beliefs. A critical, independent mind is a great thing, but the danger is when the view is held because it is unpopular and not because of any critical investigation of the evidence. Call it "anti-confirmation bias" if you want. Or to put it another way, some people just seem to enjoy smugly dismissing the obvious answer because it makes them feel smart!
  - spapas82 5y ago
    Yes, that's an explantation that could support his behaviour. However I don't think that he was doing it just to present himself as smarter than the other people. He firmly believed that opinions, at least that's what I was getting out of his talks and some of his books.
  - noobly 5y ago
    I probably play devils advocate a little bit too much, but most people are too eager to firmly plant their feet in some belief, rather than just roll the ideas around. And if you like to probe around, you'll have some questions or at least value different perspectives, and if you pose these (loaded) questions or insights to others it can be divisive, even if meant in good faith. I probably messed around as a flat earth troll too much, but I think it's a great example.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  For almost every issue you can find at least one highly educated person that thinks otherwise. If you think something is "controversial" because one person thinks otherwise, we would never land at anything. Look at their arguments and proofs. If you don't have time to examine those, look at their credentials and motivations. Michael Chrichton was a writer and filmmaker. Not a climate resarcher.
  - spapas82 5y ago
    Yes I understand this, the current covid situation has taught us that scientists don't always agree, especially when the answer isn't a universal truth. However, for the covid (or for example that smoke causes cancer debate) each scientific camp has some agenda and things to gain (either economically or scientifically or even as a matter of personal pride). The thing with Chrichton is that (as you say and I agree) was that he was an outsider to this field. And he knew that his opinions would be considered controversial and won't be liked by many people. But still made them public, along with a lot of data to support his claims. This behaviour is puzzling to me.
thatguy0900 5y ago
I suspect more deniers just think it will be the next generations problem rather than something that entirely doesn't exist, personally
- vkou 5y ago
  I think denialism has moved on to 'We're fine as we are, this is a problem that developing countries should be solving.'
  - eli 5y ago
    I think the more important headline is the numbers of climate change deniers is shrinking and the number of people who want to take action is growing. Half of all voters say it is a "critical threat," up from 40% in 2017 according to https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climate-change-threat-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climat...
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Unfortunately the difficulty increasing that percentage isn't linear. It'll probably look like the vaccine rollout where there's a pretty hard dropoff in increases past a little over 50%.
      - eli 5y ago
        10 points in 4 years is pretty good! And this is from April; I wonder if it'd be different now after this brutal summer. But yeah the real problem is the gains in concern came pretty much entirely from Democrats and Independents.
        frenchyatwork 5y ago
        Well, if science advances one funeral at a time, an increasingly hostile and less inhabitable planet may give us opportunity for advancement ...
SigmundA 5y ago
Most of the deniers I know have shifted from it doesn't exist to either its not man made and just a natural cycle or it may actually be a good thing because plants like CO2 and warmth...
- sva_ 5y ago
  Don't forget the camp of people who say "It exists, and we're past the point at which we can do something about it." I have to say, that on some days I almost feel like I share that mindset, as the promise of democracy that I was raised up on does not seem to bear fruits. It feels like people have learned to game the system too well.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I'm more or less in this camp. I definitely believe we technically could do something about climate change. But, when I think about the sheer scale of collective action it would take, combined with the fact that we can't even get a sizeable portion of Americans to exercise common sense public health measures to deal with a pandemic, that's when the doom & gloom mentality sets in for me. This is not typically my public stance; I would very much like for us to do something about it. I'm just afraid that even that amounts to wishful thinking these days.
- marcc 5y ago
  Also have heard folks make an argument that it's more economical to plan to live in the post-climate changed world than to stop climate change. See https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467 https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/...
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    That sounds like an argument made by economists. Economists are notoriously bad at estimating the true, human costs of climate change. See https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-has-climate-economics-failed https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-has-climate-economics-... for instance (skip the political commentary at the top and go straight to the next section).
api 5y ago
I was very much a skeptic until I started seeing more and more real world (as opposed to just models) evidence. I am pretty convinced now. My skepticism was rooted in the fact that politicians, pundits, and the media were trying to scare me about it. Any time politicians or the media try to scare me about anything my default response is to assume it's a get out the vote drive or a power grab and to become extremely skeptical. This isn't partisan. It doesn't matter if the politician is "left" or "right." I still think that should be a default suspicion, but that means you have to dig and check the details and check multiple sources.
- ancientworldnow 5y ago
  If anything, politicians globally are hugely downplaying the risks of climate change and betting on being out of office before the worst effects manifest.
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  Did the plethora of scientists claiming that it was an issue not factor in at all?
  - passivate 5y ago
    We should listen to the scientists because they're the best we've got. But at the same time, we need to be humble and leave room for them to be wrong. This is where science shines - we should always feel comfortable shedding incorrect models/theories and embrace new ideas that might better explain the data. So yes, ACC is real, but we should still encourage honest people to investigate and propose a better explanation if there is one. Drowning out honest voices makes the entire scientific community look bad. (Certainly, we should not give a platform to dishonest, known frauds)
  - api 5y ago
    The scientists seemed to have a single political leaning, which made me more skeptical. I saw it as religious apologetics for green ideology. The presence of any strong uniform ideology makes me extremely skeptical just like political interest does. I'd summarize as: I assume that strong ideological beliefs or political motives make people irrational, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
wk_end 5y ago
Just based on what I can gleam from things like Facebook newspaper comment sections: there are certainly still some deniers, but I feel like outright denialism has mostly given way to a belief that global warming isn't man-made - that it's a natural part of Earth's climate cycle - and that releasing carbon could only be good for the planet (plants breathe CO2 after all).
mc32 5y ago
The important policy question is what are big and small governments around the world gonna do about it? No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions. They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc).
- redisman 5y ago
  Population control sure doesn’t seem to have had any positive effect on the west’s greenhouse emissions so why would it be a silver bullet?
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because at first sight it looks (and it is true) that it is the first world that emits most of the greenhouse gasses. But everybody forgets that the third world countries do also experience progress and will also want industry and cars and air conditioning and KFC and AliExpress packages shipped to their doors. That they don't do it now is just because they don't have means to do so, but they work very hard to get there.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Exactly! If we could get reverse migration going where people in OECD countries downsized to developing nations while maintaining efficiencies, that would be ideal but of course it’s not going to happen, indeed the opposite happens where people who consume less move to rich countries and start consuming like the natives in rich countries adding to demand.
    - nonbirithm 5y ago
      Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument. If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either. It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me. It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner. But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.
imoverclocked 5y ago
I want to know what percentage of people overlap between anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and climate deniers. Are they largely the same group or do we actually have disparate groups that think science is somehow just another religion?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Yes, I think you are right that there is significant overlap between 'extreme right' 'anti vaxx' 'climate denial' and quite possibly 'white power' and the modern version of Christianity as well, it would be nice to see some hard proof or a refutation of this.
  - redisman 5y ago
    Not just modern Christianity. It had a “softer” phase for the last hundred or so years but it’s been a authoritarian and power hungry organization for over a thousand years.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      all philosophies are authoritarian and power-hungry. It's not like the libertarians and anarchists just sit by passively and wait.
  - CalRobert 5y ago
    I went to an evangelical high school ca. 2000 and most students thought it was fine to destroy the planet since the rapture was coming anyway.
- carabiner 5y ago
  Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/oeomvu/antivaxxers_clash_with_flat_earthers_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/oeomvu/anti...
- swader999 5y ago
  Practically no one is a flat earther. Anti-vaxxers - maybe 2% of population. Again, not significant. Anti-mRNA - higher, maybe 20% with a portion of those just waiting to see. Climate deniers - Depends how you define them. I've been called that but my position is that it is happening, some of it is attributable to human activity, but it is not happening at a rate that we won't be able to adapt to.
polote 5y ago
> Who still believes global warming does not exist? The same people who think there are more risks for old people to take the covid vaccine than to not take it. Not everyone is rational, and especially on climate change were acting means much more than moving 10km to get the vaccine
hotz 5y ago
Maybe if the cost of it was reasonable more people would bother. With the cost of electricity rising, people naturally buy/replace appliances with more efficient versions. The fact that anything green related costs an arm and a leg makes some people think it's all a money making scheme. The more renewable energy gets installed the more articles like this pop up. We get it, people are worried about the climate, pushing it this hard just feels like feels like fearmongering or propaganda.
- anyfoo 5y ago
  You should not be downvoted for stating your opinion, I think it adds to the conversation. That being said, can you elaborate on how "anything green related" costs an arm and a leg? Do you have a few examples maybe? If it refers to something like organic food, then, well, yeah... mass producing food without regard for anything but efficiency in creating said food will make it cheaper, not doing that means higher prices for still turning out a profit. But I don't want to put words in your mouth, please say what you were thinking of.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    I would risk suggesting that he is being downvoted because of cynical point of view. It is us, right now, who are exploiting the world. It is our kids and their kids that are going to pay for this. And here somebody complains "the cost is too high". It is as if the robber, after robbing your house, complained the bus fare was too high to get to work, so it somehow excuses the theft.
    - anyfoo 5y ago
      I still want to understand that side. And know how it can be counteracted, e.g. by subvention (to encourage the more expensive but better alternatives), and regulation (to outlaw the cheap but terrible ones). For that, I'd like to know what exactly the "anything green related" is that's (being perceived as) expensive.
      - deleted 5y ago
bwship 5y ago
I wouldn't call myself a denier. But a hot July doesn't sound that scary. Next thing that will happen is February will be the coldest month ever recorded, and then people will really lose their shit.
- cryptoz 5y ago
  Why is it not scary? The hot July killed 1000 people in the Pacific Northwest alone in just 1 week. An entire Canadian town burned the the ground, basically nothing left. Residents had 15 minutes warning and not everyone made it out. Where are you located that this hot July wasn't scary? This hot July had my fingers on emergency services as temperatures rose, AC couldn't keep up, loved ones with asthma and already trouble breathing sometimes, etc. This hot August has unhealthy fire smoke and it's difficult for me to breath outside if on a long walk. Physical realities of this hot July for just me, in my one physical location, were INTENSE. And that's not even considering the idea that most future Julys will be hotter than this one. And that every month being so hot is a leading indicator of more chaotic weather in all the bad ways - storms, heatwaves, etc. I honestly don't know how you could live through this July and not be scared of it. Maybe you got lucky with your location? This July was 100% miserable to live through and totally scary.
  - bwship 5y ago
    As a kid, I remember blackouts in New York City, and we had to sleep with wash clothes on our head, which was kind of impossible, and we would all make our way downstairs, and our parents would be hanging around outside cause it was cooler than in the house. Sorry that you had family members that were affected by this. But, no it doesn't seem scary. The fires are caused by poor forest management (talked about in another thread this week). But, I am in South Carolina, and this week it is in the 90's like just about every week in August ever down here. And actually, this summer, we have gotten a ton of rain, more so than I can remember. But, it's been hot like it always is in the summer in the south, I can't say I ever walked out my door this month and been scared about it.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > The hot July killed 1000 people in the Pacific Northwest alone in just 1 week. Cold kills more people than heat. Milder winters will save more lives than will be lost in hotter summers.
rickspencer3 5y ago
Remember that global warming is not real. If it is real, then we don't know what is causing it. If we do know what is causing, it is not humans. If we do know it is humans causing it, then there is nothing we can do about it. If there is something we can do about it, it's not worth it, think of the jobs.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Think of the children. Rock, paper, scissors, jobs, children. I beat you.
- eli 5y ago
  "Humans didn't cause it so it's not our problem" has gotta be the weirdest take. No... it's definitely a problem either way.
  - bobbylarrybobby 5y ago
    Same thing with covid. "The China Virus is sent from China so we shouldn't have to deal with it because it's not our fault". Oh, had the virus arisen naturally in the US, we could fight it, but because it's (supposedly) an act of Chinese biological warfare, we should just take it lying down? I don't get people.
    - ska 5y ago
      Scared people flip to angry people. Leaders want to give people something/someone to be angry at that isn't them.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      People were actually saying we shouldn't have to deal with covid because it came from China? In what world does that make the tiniest lick of sense?
      - iammisc 5y ago
        I've never heard this argument and I'm around a lot of people who believe it came from China. This feels like a strawman.
Bhilai 5y ago
You should check the WSJ editorials from a couple of days ago when IPCC report was released.
bjarneh 5y ago
Ten years prior to that the bad guys in "The naked gun" kidnapped and replaced a scientist to say it wasn't a problem.
frankfrankfrank 5y ago
I'm surprised this straw-man still exists. If there are any people that "believe global warming does not exist", it's an edge minority. All skeptics are clear that they believe global warming is happening. The far bigger issue in addressing the global warming matter is actually people who seem incapable of having a rational and logical discussion and debate about things, and instead simply demand imposed obedience and blind trust in people who repeatedly and constantly on many different topics keep proving themselves untrustworthy and even malicious in intent. It is in fact also why we will end up in global conflict over not just this topic, but all other topics that will also be on the line when the dam breaks. It is unfortunate that people, which you may or may not belong to, are so ideologically and fervently obsessed that they aren't actually talking about "global warming" at all, and what underpins their base assumptions are not only a deep rooted compulsion to hate their own, but also are driven by a need to dominate and subjugate others. It is akin to a psychological state in a turned/toxic relationship, where a deep and irrational resentment based on real or even just perceived slights and insults boils over into ever increasing hostility and often even also blind need to dominate or "win" even if it means self-harm and spiteful self-destruction. It is essentially a manic episode on a societal and civilizational level that we are going through, not just regarding "global warming" but on many different topics like gays, trans, immigration, freedom vs authoritarianism, etc. They are all issues that are like in a toxic and unhealthy relationship where resentments have built up so badly (regardless of origin or legitimacy) that, no, e.g., she blows up over tiny things as a proxy for whatever the far bigger issue is.
- anyfoo 5y ago
  Climate change does not care about ideology, psychology, or any of the issues you listed. It's a problem that affects literally everyone, and it needs solving.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    Right. But the solutions can't impact the environment, or the developing world, or the disadvantaged. It's pretty obvious that the US, UK, and Commonwealth countries are going to be expected to disrupt their lives and economies while the rest of the world dithers and screams that not enough is being done.
decebalus1 5y ago
Some of the deniers I know personally told me their views shifted to 'there's nothing we can do now so the point is moot, enjoy it while you can, there's no point in doing anything environmentally friendly now'
panzagl 5y ago
And yet the best solution science has been able to come up with in all that time is that we should not eat meat or drive a car. Maybe the population in general will take it seriously when they're told to do more than engage in Puritanical self-flagellation about the evils of Western society.
- brtkdotse 5y ago
  Uh, no. Science has been _screaming_ for a carbon tax. Eat all the meat and drive all you want, but be prepared to pay up for the externalities that have been “free” so far.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    So we'll charge the Masai the same for their cows that we'll charge a Texan?
    - brtkdotse 5y ago
      That’s the most ill-constructed straw man I’ve seen in a long time.
      - panzagl 5y ago
        lol, I don't disagree...
odiroot 5y ago
I chuckled at your picking up that part out of this whole (really great) book. The general story line about the terrorists trying to "deal" with the global warming is ahead of its time. Don't want to spoil it for anyone, but it's funny how the President wasn't the (most) ridiculous one there.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  I chose this because that's exactly where I am in the book. I am literally listening to it right now!
bena 5y ago
Cosmos, both the book and the series, debuted in 1980. In it, Sagan warned of greenhouse effects Al Gore was holding congressional hearings on climate change when he was first elected to Congress. In 1976. Environmental issues were the focus of his efforts during his Vice Presidency. From 1993 to 2001. So. We're actually closer to 50 years. It's not like we were not warned.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Try 1896: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif0v754K7yAhXYqp4KHXKxDCwQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rsc.org%2Fimages%2FArrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0JNFijMCXw84W1T-MTKUvq https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
the_reformation 5y ago
It's real, it's because of humans, it's not a civilization threat, and it probably isn't in the top 5 most important problems facing us this century.
- m4x 5y ago
  OK, I'll bite. You really don't think it's a civilisation threat? It probably isn't an extinction threat (for humans at least) but certainly seems like it could topple modern civilisation. What do you consider the 5+ other more important problems?
dotcommand 5y ago
> Who still believes global warming does not exist? Nobody is denying that the weather has been warming. It's all the political hysterics and nonsense that a lot of people have issues with. And of course the "world-is-ending" chicken little craziness. > I am currently listening to audiobook of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (1998). It has a paragraph on global warming and trying to convince POTUS it is real. And POTUS not wanting to act on it because it would be too large economic drag on US. And if you watched Day After Tomorrow, are you going to use that as an example of the globe cooling? With every shift in weather, the media and the mindless always scream the world is ending. Our parents' generation had to worry about global cooling. "As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,944914,00.html http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,9449... Here's a documentary featuring leonard nemoy about "climate change". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0 If you were alive 50 years ago, you'd ranting about global cooling. Did the world end 50 years ago? Of course not. But of course global warming/climate change isn't about the climate is it? It's about politics and business. I'll make a bet, in 50 years, we are all going to be laughing about global warming like we laugh about global cooling today. Banks are making 100 year old loans, all major powers are angling for influence over the arctic, etc. Doesn't seem like the political, business, military, etc elites are preparing for the world to end anytime soon.
- iammisc 5y ago
  This is my position. I mostly believe that humans are causing climate change, I just don't buy into the hysterics, but i broadly support green tech, less consumption, etc, and invest appropriately in companies seeking this future. I'm just not going to sit here and live in fear. I feel the same way about almost every claim of apocalypse, whether it's global warming or covid.
baron_harkonnen 5y ago
There is a very prevalent group of people on HN who don't deny that global warming is happening, but strongly deny that it is a serious problem. This group deeply believes that technology will solve their problems, no matter how large. All that is required is believing in this strongly enough. There is a nearly rabid belief that everything will be fine because "technology" will find a way. What these people fail to recognize is that technology is a function of energy. This comes across pretty clearly in Vaclav Smil's Energy and Civilization. Technology has felt magical in the last 250 years because we have had a tremendous amount of energy. There is a very common myth, one I used to believe myself, that magically in the age of reason man woke up and started creating amazing things. I think everyone in tech has been at least someone seduced by this vision. The cover of SICP has a wizard on it! What more accurately happened is that we started extracting fossil fuels, and that let to us being able to to magical things, including finding more fossil fuels faster. Even the earliest hunter gathers were able to harness fire and benefit from it. The first agrarian societies learned how to use the sun to build truly solar powered economies. We live in the age of fossil fuels, and as much as we wish it to be true, we are not able to build renewables on a scale and timeline to even begin to replace the magic of fossil fuels. In fact we continue to globally use more of every fossil fuel every year. Renewables are only able to supplement our insatiable hunger for energy. So technology can't magically save us from our energy problems because energy is the magic that makes technology happen. But for many here such statements border on heresy.
- feoren 5y ago
  It's less that the argument is heretical, and more that it's based on some false premises. First, it's possible to accept that climate change is a huge (and largely man-made) problem, and also believe technology will fix it. Second, you're talking about a centuries-scale trend about the relationship between technology and energy, and we're talking about the technological breakthroughs that are possible in the next couple decades if we all work together on this important problem. While it may be true that energy begets technology, technology also begets technology. Thirdly, you seem to be under-estimating how much energy we can actually get from the Sun with today's technology. We have the tech and economic output right now to completely supply our energy demand with the sun within 10-20 years via worldwide solar farms and a trans-continental grid (so the daytime side can provide for the nighttime side). Again, if the entire planet comes together to make that happen. The only thing we don't have is the will. Telling people "we're doomed, it's too late, we'll never have the technology because of this flimsy historical correlation, just lay down and die" harms the global will to fight the problem, rather than helps.
acdha 5y ago
Lots of people — a majority of Americans, even Republicans, believe it's real but that is far from universal and the percentages still mean millions of people: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-december-2020/2/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-... https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of... The key thing to remember is there was a deliberate decision made around 40 years ago to try to delay actions, by the time companies like Exxon realized it was a real threat[1] — and that was far from the time the risk was first posited: here's someone in the 1920s saying it was probable: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87055779/1918-09-12/ed-1/seq-9/print/image_681x648_from_1939%2C5984_to_3293%2C7274/ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87055779/1918-09-1... Part of that strategy was to turn it into a partisan issue and there are billion-dollar companies (Fox, Facebook, Google, etc.) helpfully providing communications platforms to ensure that message is constantly available in circles they believe might find a receptive audience. Note that I'm not saying their executives all share that view — only that it doesn't bother any of them enough to turn down the ads and engagement metrics. Because that was successfully turned into a partisan issue, that means there are many millions of people who are faced with the choice of either admitting both that they were wrong and that this is because people whom they trusted were lying to them or continuing to hope that it won't impact them much and they can just continue to make no changes, which is quite correct given their average age and affluence. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-M...
walleeee 5y ago
Plenty of comments in this thread claiming it's real but not that big a deal Unreal
guymcgwire 5y ago
I don't personally know any reasonably intelligent people who question the existence of global warming. I do, however, know several highly intelligent people who have looked at the atmospheric carbon and temperature data and wonder (quietly, for obvious reasons) if we might have got the causal mechanism story wrong.
- yongjik 5y ago
  https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-d... > CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. ... > What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. In other words, all CO2 with biological source (including fossil fuels) comes pre-tagged, and the pattern we see in the atmosphere exactly matches the assumption that they're from fossil fuels. So, unless your acquaintances theorize that it's the global temperature that drives mankind's demand for fossil fuels, there's really no ground in doubting the causal direction. It's too bad they're doubting quietly. If they actually voiced their doubts in the form of an honest question, they would have learned about C13 ratio by now.
  - guymcgwire 5y ago
    I think the case has been made quite convincingly that humans have dramatically increased atmospheric CO2. I don't personally know anyone who questions this either (but I don't know any oil lobbyists, to be fair). In fact, as someone who worked in climate advocacy for many years, I think that we proved this link quite well, almost to a fault. I say a fault, because so many resources have gone into proving that humans have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we paid less attention to making a convincing case that the rise in global temperatures can only be explained by the reflected heat caused by that atmospheric CO2. (Just consider your knee-jerk reaction to my comment where you automatically assumed that this was a question about atmospheric CO2 without considering the possibility that it might be something/anything else). When you look at the graphs for atmospheric CO2 and man-made carbon emissions laid on top of each other, it looks perfect. This is the money shot. But, when you lay the 150 year temperature data on top of it, it suddenly doesn't look so good (ignoring the normal 11 year solar fluctuations, just looking at the general trend line). There's a 70 year stretch when temperatures are flat to declining as atmospheric CO2 climbs by almost 20% (in advocacy training we'd be encouraged to skip past this: zoom out and highlight that they are _directionally_ similar and definitely never chart in percent change, of course). Personally, I still ride with Team Atmospheric Carbon. But I also don't think there's anything unhealthy with good-faith questioning of the new dogma. The Earth's magnetic field has weakened by about 5% over the past 100 years. Global temperatures have risen by about 5.5% over the past 100 years. The magnetosphere protects the Earth's atmosphere from charged solar particles which would otherwise strip off parts of the upper atmosphere, allowing more UV radiation to hit Earth. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. Is increased UV-B penetration just as likely to cause warming as increased reflected infrared radiation? Yeah? So I keep an open mind.

spapas82 5y ago

About this, what was very puzzling to me was the opinions of the late Michael Chrichton. He was constantly expressing the opinion that the global warming was a frame up, both in his books but also to various talks. He had even written a book on which the bad guys were Greenpeace agents! Now, considering how highly educated (not only he was a great author but he also had studied MD) and smart (this should be obvious to anybody that has read his books and watched over his career) he was, it means a lot to me that this person had these beliefs. Also the fact that he is not related to the field so he doesn't have anything to gain by believing and advocating these opinions makes the fact even more important. As I said I am really puzzled about that. Does anybody has more information to shade a light on that?

matthewmcg 5y ago
Maybe I've spent too much time among lawyers, but I have noticed that there are some very smart people that seem to relish having certain unconventional beliefs. A critical, independent mind is a great thing, but the danger is when the view is held because it is unpopular and not because of any critical investigation of the evidence. Call it "anti-confirmation bias" if you want. Or to put it another way, some people just seem to enjoy smugly dismissing the obvious answer because it makes them feel smart!
- spapas82 5y ago
  Yes, that's an explantation that could support his behaviour. However I don't think that he was doing it just to present himself as smarter than the other people. He firmly believed that opinions, at least that's what I was getting out of his talks and some of his books.
- noobly 5y ago
  I probably play devils advocate a little bit too much, but most people are too eager to firmly plant their feet in some belief, rather than just roll the ideas around. And if you like to probe around, you'll have some questions or at least value different perspectives, and if you pose these (loaded) questions or insights to others it can be divisive, even if meant in good faith. I probably messed around as a flat earth troll too much, but I think it's a great example.
lmilcin 5y ago
For almost every issue you can find at least one highly educated person that thinks otherwise. If you think something is "controversial" because one person thinks otherwise, we would never land at anything. Look at their arguments and proofs. If you don't have time to examine those, look at their credentials and motivations. Michael Chrichton was a writer and filmmaker. Not a climate resarcher.
- spapas82 5y ago
  Yes I understand this, the current covid situation has taught us that scientists don't always agree, especially when the answer isn't a universal truth. However, for the covid (or for example that smoke causes cancer debate) each scientific camp has some agenda and things to gain (either economically or scientifically or even as a matter of personal pride). The thing with Chrichton is that (as you say and I agree) was that he was an outsider to this field. And he knew that his opinions would be considered controversial and won't be liked by many people. But still made them public, along with a lot of data to support his claims. This behaviour is puzzling to me.

thatguy0900 5y ago

I suspect more deniers just think it will be the next generations problem rather than something that entirely doesn't exist, personally

vkou 5y ago
I think denialism has moved on to 'We're fine as we are, this is a problem that developing countries should be solving.'
- eli 5y ago
  I think the more important headline is the numbers of climate change deniers is shrinking and the number of people who want to take action is growing. Half of all voters say it is a "critical threat," up from 40% in 2017 according to https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climate-change-threat-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climat...
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Unfortunately the difficulty increasing that percentage isn't linear. It'll probably look like the vaccine rollout where there's a pretty hard dropoff in increases past a little over 50%.
    - eli 5y ago
      10 points in 4 years is pretty good! And this is from April; I wonder if it'd be different now after this brutal summer. But yeah the real problem is the gains in concern came pretty much entirely from Democrats and Independents.
      - frenchyatwork 5y ago
        Well, if science advances one funeral at a time, an increasingly hostile and less inhabitable planet may give us opportunity for advancement ...

SigmundA 5y ago

Most of the deniers I know have shifted from it doesn't exist to either its not man made and just a natural cycle or it may actually be a good thing because plants like CO2 and warmth...

sva_ 5y ago
Don't forget the camp of people who say "It exists, and we're past the point at which we can do something about it." I have to say, that on some days I almost feel like I share that mindset, as the promise of democracy that I was raised up on does not seem to bear fruits. It feels like people have learned to game the system too well.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I'm more or less in this camp. I definitely believe we technically could do something about climate change. But, when I think about the sheer scale of collective action it would take, combined with the fact that we can't even get a sizeable portion of Americans to exercise common sense public health measures to deal with a pandemic, that's when the doom & gloom mentality sets in for me. This is not typically my public stance; I would very much like for us to do something about it. I'm just afraid that even that amounts to wishful thinking these days.
marcc 5y ago
Also have heard folks make an argument that it's more economical to plan to live in the post-climate changed world than to stop climate change. See https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467 https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/...
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  That sounds like an argument made by economists. Economists are notoriously bad at estimating the true, human costs of climate change. See https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-has-climate-economics-failed https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-has-climate-economics-... for instance (skip the political commentary at the top and go straight to the next section).

api 5y ago

I was very much a skeptic until I started seeing more and more real world (as opposed to just models) evidence. I am pretty convinced now. My skepticism was rooted in the fact that politicians, pundits, and the media were trying to scare me about it. Any time politicians or the media try to scare me about anything my default response is to assume it's a get out the vote drive or a power grab and to become extremely skeptical. This isn't partisan. It doesn't matter if the politician is "left" or "right." I still think that should be a default suspicion, but that means you have to dig and check the details and check multiple sources.

ancientworldnow 5y ago
If anything, politicians globally are hugely downplaying the risks of climate change and betting on being out of office before the worst effects manifest.
imoverclocked 5y ago
Did the plethora of scientists claiming that it was an issue not factor in at all?
- passivate 5y ago
  We should listen to the scientists because they're the best we've got. But at the same time, we need to be humble and leave room for them to be wrong. This is where science shines - we should always feel comfortable shedding incorrect models/theories and embrace new ideas that might better explain the data. So yes, ACC is real, but we should still encourage honest people to investigate and propose a better explanation if there is one. Drowning out honest voices makes the entire scientific community look bad. (Certainly, we should not give a platform to dishonest, known frauds)
- api 5y ago
  The scientists seemed to have a single political leaning, which made me more skeptical. I saw it as religious apologetics for green ideology. The presence of any strong uniform ideology makes me extremely skeptical just like political interest does. I'd summarize as: I assume that strong ideological beliefs or political motives make people irrational, dishonest, and untrustworthy.

wk_end 5y ago

Just based on what I can gleam from things like Facebook newspaper comment sections: there are certainly still some deniers, but I feel like outright denialism has mostly given way to a belief that global warming isn't man-made - that it's a natural part of Earth's climate cycle - and that releasing carbon could only be good for the planet (plants breathe CO2 after all).

mc32 5y ago

The important policy question is what are big and small governments around the world gonna do about it? No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions. They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc).

redisman 5y ago
Population control sure doesn’t seem to have had any positive effect on the west’s greenhouse emissions so why would it be a silver bullet?
- lmilcin 5y ago
  So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because at first sight it looks (and it is true) that it is the first world that emits most of the greenhouse gasses. But everybody forgets that the third world countries do also experience progress and will also want industry and cars and air conditioning and KFC and AliExpress packages shipped to their doors. That they don't do it now is just because they don't have means to do so, but they work very hard to get there.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Exactly! If we could get reverse migration going where people in OECD countries downsized to developing nations while maintaining efficiencies, that would be ideal but of course it’s not going to happen, indeed the opposite happens where people who consume less move to rich countries and start consuming like the natives in rich countries adding to demand.
  - nonbirithm 5y ago
    Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument. If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either. It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me. It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner. But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.

imoverclocked 5y ago

I want to know what percentage of people overlap between anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and climate deniers. Are they largely the same group or do we actually have disparate groups that think science is somehow just another religion?

jacquesm 5y ago
Yes, I think you are right that there is significant overlap between 'extreme right' 'anti vaxx' 'climate denial' and quite possibly 'white power' and the modern version of Christianity as well, it would be nice to see some hard proof or a refutation of this.
- redisman 5y ago
  Not just modern Christianity. It had a “softer” phase for the last hundred or so years but it’s been a authoritarian and power hungry organization for over a thousand years.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    all philosophies are authoritarian and power-hungry. It's not like the libertarians and anarchists just sit by passively and wait.
- CalRobert 5y ago
  I went to an evangelical high school ca. 2000 and most students thought it was fine to destroy the planet since the rapture was coming anyway.
carabiner 5y ago
Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/oeomvu/antivaxxers_clash_with_flat_earthers_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/oeomvu/anti...
swader999 5y ago
Practically no one is a flat earther. Anti-vaxxers - maybe 2% of population. Again, not significant. Anti-mRNA - higher, maybe 20% with a portion of those just waiting to see. Climate deniers - Depends how you define them. I've been called that but my position is that it is happening, some of it is attributable to human activity, but it is not happening at a rate that we won't be able to adapt to.

polote 5y ago

> Who still believes global warming does not exist? The same people who think there are more risks for old people to take the covid vaccine than to not take it. Not everyone is rational, and especially on climate change were acting means much more than moving 10km to get the vaccine

hotz 5y ago

Maybe if the cost of it was reasonable more people would bother. With the cost of electricity rising, people naturally buy/replace appliances with more efficient versions. The fact that anything green related costs an arm and a leg makes some people think it's all a money making scheme. The more renewable energy gets installed the more articles like this pop up. We get it, people are worried about the climate, pushing it this hard just feels like feels like fearmongering or propaganda.

anyfoo 5y ago
You should not be downvoted for stating your opinion, I think it adds to the conversation. That being said, can you elaborate on how "anything green related" costs an arm and a leg? Do you have a few examples maybe? If it refers to something like organic food, then, well, yeah... mass producing food without regard for anything but efficiency in creating said food will make it cheaper, not doing that means higher prices for still turning out a profit. But I don't want to put words in your mouth, please say what you were thinking of.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  I would risk suggesting that he is being downvoted because of cynical point of view. It is us, right now, who are exploiting the world. It is our kids and their kids that are going to pay for this. And here somebody complains "the cost is too high". It is as if the robber, after robbing your house, complained the bus fare was too high to get to work, so it somehow excuses the theft.
  - anyfoo 5y ago
    I still want to understand that side. And know how it can be counteracted, e.g. by subvention (to encourage the more expensive but better alternatives), and regulation (to outlaw the cheap but terrible ones). For that, I'd like to know what exactly the "anything green related" is that's (being perceived as) expensive.
    - deleted 5y ago

bwship 5y ago

I wouldn't call myself a denier. But a hot July doesn't sound that scary. Next thing that will happen is February will be the coldest month ever recorded, and then people will really lose their shit.

cryptoz 5y ago
Why is it not scary? The hot July killed 1000 people in the Pacific Northwest alone in just 1 week. An entire Canadian town burned the the ground, basically nothing left. Residents had 15 minutes warning and not everyone made it out. Where are you located that this hot July wasn't scary? This hot July had my fingers on emergency services as temperatures rose, AC couldn't keep up, loved ones with asthma and already trouble breathing sometimes, etc. This hot August has unhealthy fire smoke and it's difficult for me to breath outside if on a long walk. Physical realities of this hot July for just me, in my one physical location, were INTENSE. And that's not even considering the idea that most future Julys will be hotter than this one. And that every month being so hot is a leading indicator of more chaotic weather in all the bad ways - storms, heatwaves, etc. I honestly don't know how you could live through this July and not be scared of it. Maybe you got lucky with your location? This July was 100% miserable to live through and totally scary.
- bwship 5y ago
  As a kid, I remember blackouts in New York City, and we had to sleep with wash clothes on our head, which was kind of impossible, and we would all make our way downstairs, and our parents would be hanging around outside cause it was cooler than in the house. Sorry that you had family members that were affected by this. But, no it doesn't seem scary. The fires are caused by poor forest management (talked about in another thread this week). But, I am in South Carolina, and this week it is in the 90's like just about every week in August ever down here. And actually, this summer, we have gotten a ton of rain, more so than I can remember. But, it's been hot like it always is in the summer in the south, I can't say I ever walked out my door this month and been scared about it.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > The hot July killed 1000 people in the Pacific Northwest alone in just 1 week. Cold kills more people than heat. Milder winters will save more lives than will be lost in hotter summers.

rickspencer3 5y ago

Remember that global warming is not real. If it is real, then we don't know what is causing it. If we do know what is causing, it is not humans. If we do know it is humans causing it, then there is nothing we can do about it. If there is something we can do about it, it's not worth it, think of the jobs.

lmilcin 5y ago
Think of the children. Rock, paper, scissors, jobs, children. I beat you.
eli 5y ago
"Humans didn't cause it so it's not our problem" has gotta be the weirdest take. No... it's definitely a problem either way.
- bobbylarrybobby 5y ago
  Same thing with covid. "The China Virus is sent from China so we shouldn't have to deal with it because it's not our fault". Oh, had the virus arisen naturally in the US, we could fight it, but because it's (supposedly) an act of Chinese biological warfare, we should just take it lying down? I don't get people.
  - ska 5y ago
    Scared people flip to angry people. Leaders want to give people something/someone to be angry at that isn't them.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    People were actually saying we shouldn't have to deal with covid because it came from China? In what world does that make the tiniest lick of sense?
    - iammisc 5y ago
      I've never heard this argument and I'm around a lot of people who believe it came from China. This feels like a strawman.

Bhilai 5y ago

You should check the WSJ editorials from a couple of days ago when IPCC report was released.

bjarneh 5y ago

Ten years prior to that the bad guys in "The naked gun" kidnapped and replaced a scientist to say it wasn't a problem.

frankfrankfrank 5y ago

I'm surprised this straw-man still exists. If there are any people that "believe global warming does not exist", it's an edge minority. All skeptics are clear that they believe global warming is happening. The far bigger issue in addressing the global warming matter is actually people who seem incapable of having a rational and logical discussion and debate about things, and instead simply demand imposed obedience and blind trust in people who repeatedly and constantly on many different topics keep proving themselves untrustworthy and even malicious in intent. It is in fact also why we will end up in global conflict over not just this topic, but all other topics that will also be on the line when the dam breaks. It is unfortunate that people, which you may or may not belong to, are so ideologically and fervently obsessed that they aren't actually talking about "global warming" at all, and what underpins their base assumptions are not only a deep rooted compulsion to hate their own, but also are driven by a need to dominate and subjugate others. It is akin to a psychological state in a turned/toxic relationship, where a deep and irrational resentment based on real or even just perceived slights and insults boils over into ever increasing hostility and often even also blind need to dominate or "win" even if it means self-harm and spiteful self-destruction. It is essentially a manic episode on a societal and civilizational level that we are going through, not just regarding "global warming" but on many different topics like gays, trans, immigration, freedom vs authoritarianism, etc. They are all issues that are like in a toxic and unhealthy relationship where resentments have built up so badly (regardless of origin or legitimacy) that, no, e.g., she blows up over tiny things as a proxy for whatever the far bigger issue is.

anyfoo 5y ago
Climate change does not care about ideology, psychology, or any of the issues you listed. It's a problem that affects literally everyone, and it needs solving.
- panzagl 5y ago
  Right. But the solutions can't impact the environment, or the developing world, or the disadvantaged. It's pretty obvious that the US, UK, and Commonwealth countries are going to be expected to disrupt their lives and economies while the rest of the world dithers and screams that not enough is being done.

decebalus1 5y ago

Some of the deniers I know personally told me their views shifted to 'there's nothing we can do now so the point is moot, enjoy it while you can, there's no point in doing anything environmentally friendly now'

panzagl 5y ago

And yet the best solution science has been able to come up with in all that time is that we should not eat meat or drive a car. Maybe the population in general will take it seriously when they're told to do more than engage in Puritanical self-flagellation about the evils of Western society.

brtkdotse 5y ago
Uh, no. Science has been _screaming_ for a carbon tax. Eat all the meat and drive all you want, but be prepared to pay up for the externalities that have been “free” so far.
- panzagl 5y ago
  So we'll charge the Masai the same for their cows that we'll charge a Texan?
  - brtkdotse 5y ago
    That’s the most ill-constructed straw man I’ve seen in a long time.
    - panzagl 5y ago
      lol, I don't disagree...

odiroot 5y ago

I chuckled at your picking up that part out of this whole (really great) book. The general story line about the terrorists trying to "deal" with the global warming is ahead of its time. Don't want to spoil it for anyone, but it's funny how the President wasn't the (most) ridiculous one there.

lmilcin 5y ago
I chose this because that's exactly where I am in the book. I am literally listening to it right now!

bena 5y ago

Cosmos, both the book and the series, debuted in 1980. In it, Sagan warned of greenhouse effects Al Gore was holding congressional hearings on climate change when he was first elected to Congress. In 1976. Environmental issues were the focus of his efforts during his Vice Presidency. From 1993 to 2001. So. We're actually closer to 50 years. It's not like we were not warned.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Try 1896: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif0v754K7yAhXYqp4KHXKxDCwQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rsc.org%2Fimages%2FArrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0JNFijMCXw84W1T-MTKUvq https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

the_reformation 5y ago

It's real, it's because of humans, it's not a civilization threat, and it probably isn't in the top 5 most important problems facing us this century.

m4x 5y ago
OK, I'll bite. You really don't think it's a civilisation threat? It probably isn't an extinction threat (for humans at least) but certainly seems like it could topple modern civilisation. What do you consider the 5+ other more important problems?

dotcommand 5y ago

> Who still believes global warming does not exist? Nobody is denying that the weather has been warming. It's all the political hysterics and nonsense that a lot of people have issues with. And of course the "world-is-ending" chicken little craziness. > I am currently listening to audiobook of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (1998). It has a paragraph on global warming and trying to convince POTUS it is real. And POTUS not wanting to act on it because it would be too large economic drag on US. And if you watched Day After Tomorrow, are you going to use that as an example of the globe cooling? With every shift in weather, the media and the mindless always scream the world is ending. Our parents' generation had to worry about global cooling. "As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,944914,00.html http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,9449... Here's a documentary featuring leonard nemoy about "climate change". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0 If you were alive 50 years ago, you'd ranting about global cooling. Did the world end 50 years ago? Of course not. But of course global warming/climate change isn't about the climate is it? It's about politics and business. I'll make a bet, in 50 years, we are all going to be laughing about global warming like we laugh about global cooling today. Banks are making 100 year old loans, all major powers are angling for influence over the arctic, etc. Doesn't seem like the political, business, military, etc elites are preparing for the world to end anytime soon.

iammisc 5y ago
This is my position. I mostly believe that humans are causing climate change, I just don't buy into the hysterics, but i broadly support green tech, less consumption, etc, and invest appropriately in companies seeking this future. I'm just not going to sit here and live in fear. I feel the same way about almost every claim of apocalypse, whether it's global warming or covid.

baron_harkonnen 5y ago

There is a very prevalent group of people on HN who don't deny that global warming is happening, but strongly deny that it is a serious problem. This group deeply believes that technology will solve their problems, no matter how large. All that is required is believing in this strongly enough. There is a nearly rabid belief that everything will be fine because "technology" will find a way. What these people fail to recognize is that technology is a function of energy. This comes across pretty clearly in Vaclav Smil's Energy and Civilization. Technology has felt magical in the last 250 years because we have had a tremendous amount of energy. There is a very common myth, one I used to believe myself, that magically in the age of reason man woke up and started creating amazing things. I think everyone in tech has been at least someone seduced by this vision. The cover of SICP has a wizard on it! What more accurately happened is that we started extracting fossil fuels, and that let to us being able to to magical things, including finding more fossil fuels faster. Even the earliest hunter gathers were able to harness fire and benefit from it. The first agrarian societies learned how to use the sun to build truly solar powered economies. We live in the age of fossil fuels, and as much as we wish it to be true, we are not able to build renewables on a scale and timeline to even begin to replace the magic of fossil fuels. In fact we continue to globally use more of every fossil fuel every year. Renewables are only able to supplement our insatiable hunger for energy. So technology can't magically save us from our energy problems because energy is the magic that makes technology happen. But for many here such statements border on heresy.

feoren 5y ago
It's less that the argument is heretical, and more that it's based on some false premises. First, it's possible to accept that climate change is a huge (and largely man-made) problem, and also believe technology will fix it. Second, you're talking about a centuries-scale trend about the relationship between technology and energy, and we're talking about the technological breakthroughs that are possible in the next couple decades if we all work together on this important problem. While it may be true that energy begets technology, technology also begets technology. Thirdly, you seem to be under-estimating how much energy we can actually get from the Sun with today's technology. We have the tech and economic output right now to completely supply our energy demand with the sun within 10-20 years via worldwide solar farms and a trans-continental grid (so the daytime side can provide for the nighttime side). Again, if the entire planet comes together to make that happen. The only thing we don't have is the will. Telling people "we're doomed, it's too late, we'll never have the technology because of this flimsy historical correlation, just lay down and die" harms the global will to fight the problem, rather than helps.

acdha 5y ago

Lots of people — a majority of Americans, even Republicans, believe it's real but that is far from universal and the percentages still mean millions of people: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-december-2020/2/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-... https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of... The key thing to remember is there was a deliberate decision made around 40 years ago to try to delay actions, by the time companies like Exxon realized it was a real threat[1] — and that was far from the time the risk was first posited: here's someone in the 1920s saying it was probable: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87055779/1918-09-12/ed-1/seq-9/print/image_681x648_from_1939%2C5984_to_3293%2C7274/ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87055779/1918-09-1... Part of that strategy was to turn it into a partisan issue and there are billion-dollar companies (Fox, Facebook, Google, etc.) helpfully providing communications platforms to ensure that message is constantly available in circles they believe might find a receptive audience. Note that I'm not saying their executives all share that view — only that it doesn't bother any of them enough to turn down the ads and engagement metrics. Because that was successfully turned into a partisan issue, that means there are many millions of people who are faced with the choice of either admitting both that they were wrong and that this is because people whom they trusted were lying to them or continuing to hope that it won't impact them much and they can just continue to make no changes, which is quite correct given their average age and affluence. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-M...

walleeee 5y ago

Plenty of comments in this thread claiming it's real but not that big a deal Unreal

guymcgwire 5y ago

I don't personally know any reasonably intelligent people who question the existence of global warming. I do, however, know several highly intelligent people who have looked at the atmospheric carbon and temperature data and wonder (quietly, for obvious reasons) if we might have got the causal mechanism story wrong.

yongjik 5y ago
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-d... > CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. ... > What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. In other words, all CO2 with biological source (including fossil fuels) comes pre-tagged, and the pattern we see in the atmosphere exactly matches the assumption that they're from fossil fuels. So, unless your acquaintances theorize that it's the global temperature that drives mankind's demand for fossil fuels, there's really no ground in doubting the causal direction. It's too bad they're doubting quietly. If they actually voiced their doubts in the form of an honest question, they would have learned about C13 ratio by now.
- guymcgwire 5y ago
  I think the case has been made quite convincingly that humans have dramatically increased atmospheric CO2. I don't personally know anyone who questions this either (but I don't know any oil lobbyists, to be fair). In fact, as someone who worked in climate advocacy for many years, I think that we proved this link quite well, almost to a fault. I say a fault, because so many resources have gone into proving that humans have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we paid less attention to making a convincing case that the rise in global temperatures can only be explained by the reflected heat caused by that atmospheric CO2. (Just consider your knee-jerk reaction to my comment where you automatically assumed that this was a question about atmospheric CO2 without considering the possibility that it might be something/anything else). When you look at the graphs for atmospheric CO2 and man-made carbon emissions laid on top of each other, it looks perfect. This is the money shot. But, when you lay the 150 year temperature data on top of it, it suddenly doesn't look so good (ignoring the normal 11 year solar fluctuations, just looking at the general trend line). There's a 70 year stretch when temperatures are flat to declining as atmospheric CO2 climbs by almost 20% (in advocacy training we'd be encouraged to skip past this: zoom out and highlight that they are _directionally_ similar and definitely never chart in percent change, of course). Personally, I still ride with Team Atmospheric Carbon. But I also don't think there's anything unhealthy with good-faith questioning of the new dogma. The Earth's magnetic field has weakened by about 5% over the past 100 years. Global temperatures have risen by about 5.5% over the past 100 years. The magnetosphere protects the Earth's atmosphere from charged solar particles which would otherwise strip off parts of the upper atmosphere, allowing more UV radiation to hit Earth. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. Is increased UV-B penetration just as likely to cause warming as increased reflected infrared radiation? Yeah? So I keep an open mind.