7 ms·

Climate change deniers are going to have field day with this one.

by quaintdev 3y ago

digitalsushi 3y ago
I'm fine with that because they are becoming less relevant as increasingly extreme weather makes believers of skeptics
boomchinolo78 3y ago
Denier is such a loaded word, call them skeptic. In this case at least, seems their skepticism was warranted.
- jamiek88 3y ago
  Not really. It’s 20x instead of 28x is hardly ‘methane is actually ok’. Science is hard.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    I think everyone has "always" known that methane is not a key driver of climate change. Its relatively short atmospheric life and relatively low concentration make it have a modest effect relative to CO2, even if it is more potent. A 30% reduction serves to further show that the priority needs to be CO2 in general, and everything but the low hanging fruit for methane emissions is a distraction. Of course, the possibility of runaway effects and short term positive feedback loops from methane release from permafrost, etc, is still a concern. I guess a 30% reduction there is somewhat good news.
- azan_ 3y ago
  Climate deniers are not people who discuss whether methane is 28x or 20x as strong as CO2, but rather people that do not believe in global warming (or our responsibility for it) at all; that's not skepticism, that's blind faith.
  - replygirl 3y ago
    Relative to what things looked like 10-20 years ago, is there still a meaningful contingent of climate change deniers? As far as I can tell, most of those people have accepted the reality but disagree on how we should approach it. Even in the most extreme case--looking at Republicans in the US Congress, steeped in fossil propaganda and owing many of their elections to gerrymandering--and using a broad definition of climate change denialism, deniers are (very slightly) in the minority
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      At this point we have to consider people who deny that climate change is caused by humans to be climate deniers, since they are advocating for no change in behavior which is the same as people who outright deny that it's happening.
      - replygirl 3y ago
        I've heard these arguments: (a) that we don't have the evidence to confirm that climate change is anthropogenic, and (b) that we shouldn't change our behavior. My understanding is (b) is not tied to (a), but rather that most claims of (b) come out of different views on conservation, what "nature" is, what's achievable with technology, and how different approaches to climate change might impact human quality of life. And (b) is not really that we _shouldn't_ change our behavior, but that the most popular ideas for how we should are varying degrees of infeasible, harmful, or fascistic. The "right" on this issue is largely misunderstood. Those pushing for a shift to renewables and a lifestyle change in wealthier nations deserve better literature on what their opposition is advocating for and against: https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism
      - junofan 3y ago
        What behavior change should people advocate for to not be considered climate deniers? It’s starting to sound more like a temperance movement than a serious attempt to solve a problem.
- HyperSane 3y ago
  20x vs 28x worse than CO2 hardly proves them correct.
- SquareWheel 3y ago
  In the context of scientific skepticism[1], denier or denialism[2] is the correct label. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- it_citizen 3y ago
  If it is loaded in the sense that they will keep their beliefs despite the vast amount of data proving that not only it exists but it is happening, I am fine with that.
- hannob 3y ago
  I haven't seen those "skeptics" who said "maybe methane has a slightly smaller impact and CO2 a bigger one". Can you point me to sources here?
gsich 3y ago
As if the exact number matters to them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
usrusr 3y ago
Otoh their allies, the climate change fatalists, might lose their "what about methane". (in reality they are usually not allies but the same persons, switching between denial and it's too late anyways some times even mid-sentence)
ifyoubuildit 3y ago
What is the point of making this comment? What does it add to the conversation? Are you just looking for commiseration? Do you get some satisfaction if you then find a loony on the socials having their field day?
jansan 3y ago
Unlike CO2 the influence of methane on atmospheric warming (in W/m²) has not changed during the last 50 years. I appears there is almost zero impact on climate change by man/woman-made methane. Am I a denier by pointing that out?
Geee 3y ago
Many people don't deny the first-order effects. However, the second-order effects are speculative, and there is and should be more skepticism towards them, especially when someone is suggesting authoritarian policies based on them. Sadly, most of the green movement is just Marxism in new clothes and for them the climate change is an opportunity to push their authoritarian and dystopian policies. They use words such as 'oceans boiling' and 'extinction' as a part of their propaganda which are total and utter lies. The goal for Marxists is to stop human progress and wealth generation. Implementing their policies would result in a way worse world than a world with climate change.

Climate change deniers are going to have field day with this one.

digitalsushi 3y ago

I'm fine with that because they are becoming less relevant as increasingly extreme weather makes believers of skeptics

boomchinolo78 3y ago

Denier is such a loaded word, call them skeptic. In this case at least, seems their skepticism was warranted.

jamiek88 3y ago
Not really. It’s 20x instead of 28x is hardly ‘methane is actually ok’. Science is hard.
- mlyle 3y ago
  I think everyone has "always" known that methane is not a key driver of climate change. Its relatively short atmospheric life and relatively low concentration make it have a modest effect relative to CO2, even if it is more potent. A 30% reduction serves to further show that the priority needs to be CO2 in general, and everything but the low hanging fruit for methane emissions is a distraction. Of course, the possibility of runaway effects and short term positive feedback loops from methane release from permafrost, etc, is still a concern. I guess a 30% reduction there is somewhat good news.
azan_ 3y ago
Climate deniers are not people who discuss whether methane is 28x or 20x as strong as CO2, but rather people that do not believe in global warming (or our responsibility for it) at all; that's not skepticism, that's blind faith.
- replygirl 3y ago
  Relative to what things looked like 10-20 years ago, is there still a meaningful contingent of climate change deniers? As far as I can tell, most of those people have accepted the reality but disagree on how we should approach it. Even in the most extreme case--looking at Republicans in the US Congress, steeped in fossil propaganda and owing many of their elections to gerrymandering--and using a broad definition of climate change denialism, deniers are (very slightly) in the minority
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    At this point we have to consider people who deny that climate change is caused by humans to be climate deniers, since they are advocating for no change in behavior which is the same as people who outright deny that it's happening.
    - replygirl 3y ago
      I've heard these arguments: (a) that we don't have the evidence to confirm that climate change is anthropogenic, and (b) that we shouldn't change our behavior. My understanding is (b) is not tied to (a), but rather that most claims of (b) come out of different views on conservation, what "nature" is, what's achievable with technology, and how different approaches to climate change might impact human quality of life. And (b) is not really that we _shouldn't_ change our behavior, but that the most popular ideas for how we should are varying degrees of infeasible, harmful, or fascistic. The "right" on this issue is largely misunderstood. Those pushing for a shift to renewables and a lifestyle change in wealthier nations deserve better literature on what their opposition is advocating for and against: https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism
    - junofan 3y ago
      What behavior change should people advocate for to not be considered climate deniers? It’s starting to sound more like a temperance movement than a serious attempt to solve a problem.
HyperSane 3y ago
20x vs 28x worse than CO2 hardly proves them correct.
SquareWheel 3y ago
In the context of scientific skepticism[1], denier or denialism[2] is the correct label. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
it_citizen 3y ago
If it is loaded in the sense that they will keep their beliefs despite the vast amount of data proving that not only it exists but it is happening, I am fine with that.
hannob 3y ago
I haven't seen those "skeptics" who said "maybe methane has a slightly smaller impact and CO2 a bigger one". Can you point me to sources here?

gsich 3y ago

As if the exact number matters to them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

usrusr 3y ago

Otoh their allies, the climate change fatalists, might lose their "what about methane". (in reality they are usually not allies but the same persons, switching between denial and it's too late anyways some times even mid-sentence)

ifyoubuildit 3y ago

What is the point of making this comment? What does it add to the conversation? Are you just looking for commiseration? Do you get some satisfaction if you then find a loony on the socials having their field day?

jansan 3y ago

Unlike CO2 the influence of methane on atmospheric warming (in W/m²) has not changed during the last 50 years. I appears there is almost zero impact on climate change by man/woman-made methane. Am I a denier by pointing that out?

Geee 3y ago

Many people don't deny the first-order effects. However, the second-order effects are speculative, and there is and should be more skepticism towards them, especially when someone is suggesting authoritarian policies based on them. Sadly, most of the green movement is just Marxism in new clothes and for them the climate change is an opportunity to push their authoritarian and dystopian policies. They use words such as 'oceans boiling' and 'extinction' as a part of their propaganda which are total and utter lies. The goal for Marxists is to stop human progress and wealth generation. Implementing their policies would result in a way worse world than a world with climate change.