5 ms·

On his wiki page it says: "He asserts that climate change is naturally caused, as part of the climate's cyclical nature." So you are, like many people, misund

On his wiki page it says: "He asserts that climate change is naturally caused, as part of the climate's cyclical nature." So you are, like many people, misunderstand him, and many other people like him, that they don't deny climate change, but just aren't convinced that it is primarily caused by humans. There is actually no scientific data that proofs the idea that humans are the primary cause of climate change, so it is still an open question, and therefore different beliefs about it should be respected. But it's such a controversial and sensitive topic, that many people don't even want to be open to another perspective, which is sad.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Smoosh 2y ago
So, stage 2 of denial? “there are five clear stages of climate denial: arguing that climate change is not real, that humans are not to blame, that climate change will be a positive force, that it will be too expensive to fix, arguing it will be too late to tackle it. ” https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/five-stages-climate-denial-how-counter-them-according-climate-scientist-1266030 https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/five-stages-climate-den...
- gitaarik 2y ago
  So then you come with a campaign article backed by celebs? Where is the actual scientific data? Data that it is a clear indicator that climate change is driven by human actions? I would rather say these people are science deniers.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > Where is the actual scientific data? * Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products. * Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples. * Records of global mean temp. increases. Couple that with a good understanding of thermodynamics and material properties and we're good to go. You'll find references for all that along with milestone papers on the science in the IPCC report(s) that are regularly updated. Happy reading.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      This is all evidence for climate change. We're talking about whether humans are the primary cause for this climate change.
      - defrost 2y ago
        * Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products. * Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples. These are evidence of human activity .. you understand isotopes 'n stuff, right? They fingerprint sources. I suggest you read the IPCC reports and some of the primary works - you'll have a better understanding and maybe refrain from saying silly things like your comment above. Even Spann has changed tone: in more recent years Spann has taken a more publicly neutral stance on the topic, refraining from going in-depth when pressed about climate change in more recent interviews.[citation needed] In a VICE news interview in 2018, Spann told the host that "I do weather, not climate" and that they should "ask a climatologist" for more information. Spann's original viewpoints have been criticized by many in the meteorology community. In a blog post for Inside Climate News, Katherine Bagley explained that the short-term models used by many TV weather forecasters are too short-term to demonstrate long-term climate patterns, and that most meteorology degrees do not include any education on climate or climate change.
        gitaarik 2y ago
        Ok, what do you mean exactly? * Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products. Yes, ok, humans have been extracting resources, but how are we sure this is driving climate change? * Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples. Yeah, the climate is changing, but how are we sure this is driven by humans? I guess you think that if they happen at the same time, one must be the cause for the other, which is a logical way of thinking, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Just like there are many variables that drive the weather, there are many variables that drive climate change. And we just don't really have good data to know if the human variable is significantly high that we can easily influence it.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Also the article says: > “What do all these stages have in common?” Prof Hayhoe asked. “They all accomplish the same goal. The goal is the important thing – it doesn’t matter what you say, it is the goal that matters. And what is the goal? No climate action.” Which doesn't make sense. The climate could be changing due to natural causes, but we could still want to have influence on it. One doesn't exclude the other. But this woman wants to make everyone that doesn't think the same way as them to be viewed as "deniers" or something else like "conspiracy theorist" or whatever. It's a campaign, it's not science.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Smoosh 2y ago

So, stage 2 of denial? “there are five clear stages of climate denial: arguing that climate change is not real, that humans are not to blame, that climate change will be a positive force, that it will be too expensive to fix, arguing it will be too late to tackle it. ” https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/five-stages-climate-denial-how-counter-them-according-climate-scientist-1266030 https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/five-stages-climate-den...

gitaarik 2y ago
So then you come with a campaign article backed by celebs? Where is the actual scientific data? Data that it is a clear indicator that climate change is driven by human actions? I would rather say these people are science deniers.
- defrost 2y ago
  > Where is the actual scientific data? * Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products. * Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples. * Records of global mean temp. increases. Couple that with a good understanding of thermodynamics and material properties and we're good to go. You'll find references for all that along with milestone papers on the science in the IPCC report(s) that are regularly updated. Happy reading.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    This is all evidence for climate change. We're talking about whether humans are the primary cause for this climate change.
    - defrost 2y ago
      * Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products. * Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples. These are evidence of human activity .. you understand isotopes 'n stuff, right? They fingerprint sources. I suggest you read the IPCC reports and some of the primary works - you'll have a better understanding and maybe refrain from saying silly things like your comment above. Even Spann has changed tone: in more recent years Spann has taken a more publicly neutral stance on the topic, refraining from going in-depth when pressed about climate change in more recent interviews.[citation needed] In a VICE news interview in 2018, Spann told the host that "I do weather, not climate" and that they should "ask a climatologist" for more information. Spann's original viewpoints have been criticized by many in the meteorology community. In a blog post for Inside Climate News, Katherine Bagley explained that the short-term models used by many TV weather forecasters are too short-term to demonstrate long-term climate patterns, and that most meteorology degrees do not include any education on climate or climate change.
      - gitaarik 2y ago
        Ok, what do you mean exactly? * Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products. Yes, ok, humans have been extracting resources, but how are we sure this is driving climate change? * Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples. Yeah, the climate is changing, but how are we sure this is driven by humans? I guess you think that if they happen at the same time, one must be the cause for the other, which is a logical way of thinking, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Just like there are many variables that drive the weather, there are many variables that drive climate change. And we just don't really have good data to know if the human variable is significantly high that we can easily influence it.
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Also the article says: > “What do all these stages have in common?” Prof Hayhoe asked. “They all accomplish the same goal. The goal is the important thing – it doesn’t matter what you say, it is the goal that matters. And what is the goal? No climate action.” Which doesn't make sense. The climate could be changing due to natural causes, but we could still want to have influence on it. One doesn't exclude the other. But this woman wants to make everyone that doesn't think the same way as them to be viewed as "deniers" or something else like "conspiracy theorist" or whatever. It's a campaign, it's not science.