3 ms·

> Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction Actually my example was to show that"both di

> Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction Actually my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative in terms of how they're politicizing the issue. Taxing us normal citizens for carbon emissions just as a feel good mechanism (concentrically just like those idiotic lockdowns) while creating exemptions for the themselves and their fellow sleazeballs who go to climate change summits on private jets.

throwaway34241 5y ago
> my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative In my view, most people probably wouldn't have an opinion on climate science absent external influence, since they don't encounter it in their day-to-day life. So, various groups vie for influence (academia, businesses, political parties, media outlets, etc) and that determines public opinion. But just because both sides try to influence the public, I wouldn't say they are the same - which side is closer to the facts seems like a separate issue than how public opinion works. From your other comments: > One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" > which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable > It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good It sounds like you might be skeptical (although I'm not sure). I can only share some facts I have found convincing: - 97-100% of climate scientists think global warming is real [1] - The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for 100 years [2] - Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, and we use a lot of fossil fuels - We can measure historical CO2 by looking at air bubbles trapped in the ice in Antartica. It also correlates with estimated temperatures (by using isotopes like Deuterium). [3] [4] - We already have ~25% higher CO2 concentrations than the entire ice core record going back 800,000 years. This increase happened in the last ~60 years. [5] Didn't down vote you BTW. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking-about-greenhouse-gases-191-years-180956146/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking... [3] http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/ http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-co... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...

throwaway34241 5y ago

> my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative In my view, most people probably wouldn't have an opinion on climate science absent external influence, since they don't encounter it in their day-to-day life. So, various groups vie for influence (academia, businesses, political parties, media outlets, etc) and that determines public opinion. But just because both sides try to influence the public, I wouldn't say they are the same - which side is closer to the facts seems like a separate issue than how public opinion works. From your other comments: > One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" > which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable > It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good It sounds like you might be skeptical (although I'm not sure). I can only share some facts I have found convincing: - 97-100% of climate scientists think global warming is real [1] - The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for 100 years [2] - Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, and we use a lot of fossil fuels - We can measure historical CO2 by looking at air bubbles trapped in the ice in Antartica. It also correlates with estimated temperatures (by using isotopes like Deuterium). [3] [4] - We already have ~25% higher CO2 concentrations than the entire ice core record going back 800,000 years. This increase happened in the last ~60 years. [5] Didn't down vote you BTW. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking-about-greenhouse-gases-191-years-180956146/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking... [3] http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/ http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-co... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...