Despite the Evidence, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change

[Frank Robert]

Did Rochelle Walensky affirm that vaccinated people do not carry the virus?

People including scientists make misstates. Science is based on evidence and when new evidence becomes available the science is updated.

You are partially correct that CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky initially made a statement suggesting that vaccinated people do not carry the virus or transmit it to others. It would be wise of you to take this as a learning lesson so as not to repeat it over and over, I doubt that you will.

However, the CDC later clarified that while vaccinated individuals are highly unlikely to transmit the virus, the evidence isn't clear, and they are continuing to evaluate the evidence

Therefore, while vaccination significantly reduces the risk of virus transmission, the CDC has not definitively stated that vaccinated individuals cannot transmit the virus.

While pointing to other peoples mistakes you might do yourself a favor and recognize your own.

BTW, I am not a fan of the the CDC. Here is something that they were definitely wrong on and have not yet corrected. The CDC does not fully recognize Covid as being airborne.

 

[Fred]

People including scientists make misstates.

Copout.

 

[Frank Robert]

So what? 15% is not a particularly significant percentage. In a country of 330 million people that comes out to just under 50 million, which is a lot of people, but not in comparison to the 85% who presumably accept climate change as a real condition. Do you think U.S. News and World Report is making an issue where none exists? It would not be the first time "news" media, and especially the US News has done such a thing.

They are stating a fact from their research. Perhaps you didn't find it interesting while other like myself did.

Maybe that is because over the last three-quarters of a century both environmentalists and scientists have lied about what is now called climate change. Maybe it's because over the same period of time many of their predictions, especially the most ominous, threatening, apocalyptic or their predictions have proved false. Maybe it's because they keep changing the name, so it looks like they don't have a clue what it is they're talking about or worried about. Maybe it is because climate change is being used politically to move a globalist and statist agenda and few acknowledge that fact and folks wonder why they're not forthcoming and honest about that. Maybe, in light of the fact politics and science often make bad partners some doubt is warranted, after all, we just went through a few years of government malfeasance, abused science, false science, and outright lies pertaining to COVID. Maybe it's because if any of the actual powers that be genuinely believed climate change were legitimate, we'd see more COVID-like government action, not less. Maybe it's because language is frequently abused, forcing abnormal definitions on words (like "climate" and people recognize the errors and consider it deceitful. Maybe it's because the last time you and I attempted to discuss this topic you relied on a left-wing politicized "news" article instead of something objectively scientific and here you are doing it again. Maybe it's because our scientific knowledge changes every 100-150 years and many wonder why scientists (who know the ever-changing nature of scientific discovery) aren't more forthcoming about that. Every single one of those maybes I just listed is based in fact.

Just saying.

I don't disagree that there have scientists and others who lie. However I think for the most part scientists have have been honest about climate change. While there may be differing opinions and interpretations of climate data, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activities. What you may be referring to are the way the news is spread. Current news needs to be sensational and perhaps many of the lies come for over zealous reporters.

Scientific evolves continually:

Here are some of today's most obvious markers of climate change include:

1. Rising Temperatures: Global temperatures are increasing, leading to more frequent and intense heatwaves, and impacting various ecosystems and human health.
2. Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: The melting of glaciers and polar ice caps is contributing to rising sea levels, which pose a threat to coastal areas and island nations
   Changes in Precipitation Patterns: Climate change is altering rainfall patterns, leading to more intense and prolonged droughts in some regions and increased precipitation in others.
3. Extreme Weather Events: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, storms, and wildfires, are linked to climate change.
4. Ocean Warming: The warming of the oceans is affecting marine life, sea levels, and weather patterns
5. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, has reached unprecedented levels due to human activities.

These markers provide clear evidence of the ongoing changes in the Earth's climate and their far-reaching impacts on the environment and society. Perhaps that's why there are only 15% who don't agree. Do you find any of the above to be overboard?

Given the many reasons to doubt climate change I'm a little surprised the percentage isn't higher than 15%, and for the record: I do not deny collective human behavior adversely effects the environment in adverse ways.

The reason why the percentage of deniers is declining is that the disinformation from the fossil fuel industries is becoming easier and easier to recognize when measured against what is taking place in reality. I reside in FL and my home insurance is likely to go up another 50% on top this year's 50% increase and my home is not in a critical weather area.

Go to google news any day of the week and do a search on climate change, you will come up with multiple stories. Some are likely to be overboard but most are not.

 

[Frank Robert]

Copout.

Again you are showing your ignorance of science.

 

[Fred]

Again you are showing your ignorance of science.

You are doing a terrible job of defending your god.

 

[Frank Robert]

You are doing a terrible job of defending your god.

Do you really think ignorance of science is a defense for God?

This is getting to stupid to continue. BYE

 

[Fred]

Do you really think ignorance of science is a defense for God?

This is getting to stupid to continue. BYE

Science is great, but your fake science like your fake meaning of Bible words reeks something wretched.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/is-the-devil-using-lgbtq-to-destroy-christian-churches.1442/page-2#post-63619

 

[Josheb]

They are stating a fact from their research.

The research proves otherwise in a number of places.

Scientific evolves continually:

Here are some of today's most obvious markers of climate change include:

1. Rising Temperatures: Global temperatures are increasing, leading to more frequent and intense heatwaves, and impacting various ecosystems and human health.
2. Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: The melting of glaciers and polar ice caps is contributing to rising sea levels, which pose a threat to coastal areas and island nations
   Changes in Precipitation Patterns: Climate change is altering rainfall patterns, leading to more intense and prolonged droughts in some regions and increased precipitation in others.
3. Extreme Weather Events: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, storms, and wildfires, are linked to climate change.
4. Ocean Warming: The warming of the oceans is affecting marine life, sea levels, and weather patterns
5. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, has reached unprecedented levels due to human activities.

These markers provide clear evidence of the ongoing changes in the Earth's climate and their far-reaching impacts on the environment and society..............

You should keep current of the data because a number of those metrics have improved, not worsened. While overall temps have increased substantively, that same data shows the temps fluctuate quite bit within the overall increase and while it is projected to continue to increase the fact is a "projection" is simply and informed speculation. That's not science. When reasonable speculation is used as propaganda that's not science, either, especially when used for partisan political purpose. Recent data from various government agencies shows an unexpected cessation in the ice caps melting over the last eight years. Rising ocean levels do not correlate to the ice cap melt and projections are constantly being redone. Fifty of the most populous nations in the world, including the US, China, India, and Russia, now have declining birth rates and if these trends continue ALL the projections in population growth and human impact on the environment will have to be recalculated. There have been no long-term changes in extreme weather. That's a myth. The only firm item in the bullet list is the sudden extreme increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases but it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes. I just recently read where WHO is now supporting the limited use of DDT, a pesticide that was once banned based on falsified data used wrongly for political purpose.

The reason why the percentage of deniers is declining is that the disinformation from the fossil fuel industries is becoming easier and easier to recognize when measured against what is taking place in reality...................

That's laughable. People are not stupid. That explanation would be true if the fossil fuel industry were the sole source of information, and it is not. US News is a much less reliable source of information than the fossil fuel industry. If and when fossil fuels run out it will be those industries that develop alternatives, so they have a vested interest in some degree of accuracy, even if that accuracy is motivated by their respective biases. Neither of the sources you've cited ever mentioned that.


A lie of omission is still a lie.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The research proves otherwise in a number of places.

You should keep current of the data because a number of those metrics have improved, not worsened.

Can you please provide evidence for this?

While overall temps have increased substantively, that same data shows the temps fluctuate quite bit within the overall increase

Yes, of course the temperatures fluctuate quite a bit, and the temperatures at the poles are increaing more than the temperatures at the equator,
As you say there is no denying that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing.

and while it is projected to continue to increase the fact is a "projection" is simply and informed speculation. That's not science.

Actually that is science. The projections are based on models derived from the scientific data. They fit the observed data and then make predictions about what is likely to happen given different scenarios. But it's not prophecy.

When reasonable speculation is used as propaganda that's not science, either, especially when used for partisan political purpose.

Scientists are trying to show what will happen if we continue to delay in taking action. The propaganda comes for the big fossile fuel companies who decades ago started political lobbying and a massive disinformation campaign. They spend billions on it each year. Why? Because they receive trillions of dollars in government subsidies.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates May 2019, IMF, viewed 14 March 2021, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509.

Recent data from various government agencies shows an unexpected cessation in the ice caps melting over the last eight years.

Really? Do you have any data to support that claim?

Rising ocean levels do not correlate to the ice cap melt and projections are constantly being redone. Fifty of the most populous nations in the world, including the US, China, India, and Russia, now have declining birth rates and if these trends continue ALL the projections in population growth and human impact on the environment will have to be recalculated.

While this may change things a little, the declining rates are nowhere near enough to make much of an impact.

There have been no long-term changes in extreme weather. That's a myth.

Again, do you have any data to support that claim?

The only firm item in the bullet list is the sudden extreme increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases but it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes.

You are deceived. The evidence is clear and there is total consensus among climate scientists that climate change is due to human causes.

I just recently read where WHO is now supporting the limited use of DDT, a pesticide that was once banned based on falsified data used wrongly for political purpose.

This is irrelevant.

That's laughable. People are not stupid.

Do not under-estimate the human propensity for stupidity.

That explanation would be true if the fossil fuel industry were the sole source of information, and it is not. US News is a much less reliable source of information than the fossil fuel industry. If and when fossil fuels run out it will be those industries that develop alternatives, so they have a vested interest in some degree of accuracy, even if that accuracy is motivated by their respective biases. Neither of the sources you've cited ever mentioned that.

Yes, other industries have a vested interest too. But if you are looking for someone with a interest in hiding the truth look at the fossile fuel companies first. The fossile fuel industy has everything to lose in this. Trillion of dollars to lose (see above). They have a lot of money and power and have a vested interest in delaying action on climate change.
But the scientists are just doing their job.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

Indeed. So look at the facts. Look at the actual scientific data. Not what the news reporters are telling you, not what the fossile fuel comanies are telling you, or even the renewable energy companies are telling you. Look at the science. Because despite all the mocking that has gone on here, this is a very serious issue. If the scientists are right, then the world is in trouble and needs to take action now.

But, even if the scientists are wrong, or are being overly alarmist, and we do take action, what have we lost? We would have moved to cleaner energy solutions, invested in a future that is sustainable, reduced air pollution, found more efficient, cost effective solutions to our energy needs.

 

[Josheb]

Can you please provide evidence for this?

Sure. Did you ask the op to do the same? The onus is on the op to prove the op, not me to disprove it.

Declining population
WHO promoting DDT
I cannot find the article showing the ice caps stable over the last seven years but HERE's a NASA article showing growth over the last four. I'll try to track down the other article.

Yes, of course the temperatures fluctuate quite a bit....

Stop making excuses. The point is not that temperatures change, nor that the planet may be permanently warming. The point is the op is making claims without showing any evidence, much less any proof, but rather than ask him for evidence you're asking me when the onus is not on me. Your double standards are showing.

Actually that is science. The projections are based on models derived from the scientific data. They fit the observed data and then make predictions about what is likely to happen given different scenarios. But it's not prophecy.

I understand that's what they do. I also understand science is not speculation.

Scientists are trying to show what will happen if we continue to delay in taking action.

No, Scientists are trying to show what they think will likely happen. Big difference.

The propaganda comes for the big fossile fuel companies who decades ago started political lobbying and a massive disinformation campaign. They spend billions on it each year. Why? Because they receive trillions of dollars in government subsidies.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates May 2019, IMF, viewed 14 March 2021, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509.

LOL! What you mean to imply is "The propaganda comes ONLY from the 'big fossil fuel companies'," when the fact is propaganda comes from many sources, including the IMF. The IMF is governed by the exact same people who subsidize the fossil fuel business. It's not just them, though. As much as 60% of money market accounts are invested in oil. Maybe more if we include gas. You and I (or anyone with an IRA containing money markets) are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

While this may change things a little, the declining rates are nowhere near enough to make much of an impact.

You don't know that.

There are a bunch of people who believe there is going to be a great tribulation that will last seven years and destroy a third of the earth's population. Many of them believe it will happen any day now. They read the doomsday predictions by rags like US News and World Report and see Revelation in every page. US News is a secular version of religious apocalypse. The only difference is the secularists think themselves gods able to change the planet, controlling it and its population. I hope you're not one of either group.

You are deceived.

Ad hominem noted.

The evidence is clear and there is total consensus among climate scientists that climate change is due to human causes.

I never said otherwise. I did, in fact, plainly state, "I do not deny collective human behavior adversely effects the environment in adverse ways," at the end of Post 20. Human influence is not a point in dispute or question.

This is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. It's an example of 1) human intervention adversely affecting the environment, 2) science and politics getting their original conclusions wrong, and 3) prior propaganda masquerading as science. It happens quite often.

Do not under-estimate the human propensity for stupidity.

I see it every day when people post non sequiturs, red herrings, ad hominem, and other fallacious arguments like those present in post 29.

But, even if the scientists are wrong, or are being overly alarmist, and we do take action, what have we lost?

Well, first, It's not possible for scientists to be wrong or "overly alarmist" according to those who use labels like "climate danger." Likewise, science is neither wrong nor alarmist. Those are moral terms, not scientific terms. Most importantly, what we've lost is our civilized civilization, and perhaps democracy. Your post is a case example of this because it was you, not me, who attacked others personally - leaving the specific subject of the op to do so. That makes you part of the problem to be solved because a reasonable, rational, cogent, and coherent conversation cannot be had with those who think, "you are deceived," is a rational argument, and do not see the relevance when scientific data is abused, or incorrectly believes the oil companies are the only source of propaganda.

We would have moved to cleaner energy solutions, invested in a future that is sustainable, reduced air pollution, found more efficient, cost effective solutions to our energy needs.

All of which is happening. Woulda, coulda - doing. Europe's energy efficiency ratings are the lowest in the world. Asia and the US fall in the top ten.

 

[makesends]

I was wondering how does the climate change denial resonate with conspiracy theories in general.

Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion

New research by Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood at the University of Chicago find that 50 percent of the country subscribes to at least one of these conspiracy theories. So 19 percent of Americans believe the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks. 25 percent believe the recent financial crisis was caused by the small cabal of Wall Street bankers. 11 percent of people believe the government is mandating a switch to compact florescent light bulbs because the light bulbs make people obedient and easy to control.​

​

Nearly 15% of Americans still deny that climate change is real, according to a new national assessment from the University of Michigan. (I was surprised to learn that the amount of deniers was so low.)​

​

Evidence of climate change has been mounting, including science which has shown that climate-related natural disasters are growing in frequency and intensity sooner than originally predicted, researchers said. Which shows that:​

climate change is still not wholly accepted as fact in the United States. To assess climate change denialism in America, researchers analyzed Twitter (now X) data from 2017 to 2019, using AI techniques to track how social media has spread such denial. In effect the 15% of climate change deniers fits neatly as a conspiracy theory.​

​

Also of interest from the study:​

​

Analysis of the tweets showed that belief in climate change is highest along the West Coast and East Coast, and that denialism is highest in the central and southern parts of the United States.​

​

In fact, more than 20% of the populations of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota do not believe in climate change, results show.​

Belief in climate change also can vary widely within each state, researchers added.​

For example, less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change, but northern California’s Shasta County had denial rates as high as 52%.​

​

The researchers also found a strong connection between climate denialism and low COVID vaccination rates, suggesting that these folks have a broad skepticism of science.​

​

"What this indicates is that communities with a high prevalence of climate change deniers are at risk of discounting other science-based health or safety recommendations," said lead author Dimitrios Gounaridis, a research fellow at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems.​

​

15% seems surprisingly low to me. I doubt very much the "study" was done with neutral questions. Also, I don't doubt that, like how most polls are done, the sampling was random.

Just a note, on the subject of global warming: The way this is written, it is pretty plain that those promoting the study promote the notion of global warming, and that they would love to call it "man-caused", (though they lack evidence that it is anything more than natural), because it sounds less scientific than to load a concept with obvious bias.

Years ago, I worked on a dairy farm. The fastest way to heat a tub of water for sterilizing the stainless processing components and utensils was to inject steam into the water —not to beam radiation at the surface of it. Yet we hear not only that the ocean is warming abnormally, but that it is by reduction of ionosphere, (also caused by man-made pollution), resulting in increased solar activity Noting what one volcano on the surface can do, and the fact that we are unaware of most activity below the surface, why should we assume the oceans are warming unnaturally? If a new volcano begins, or even a known one increases its activity, how long before we know about it? How much difference would it make?

I admit to ignorance on the subject, but this subject, like so many other things I hear, (such as the noise surrounding Covid 19), is so loaded with the pressures of political correctness that its promotion has long since lost credibility, for me.

 

[EarlyActs]

Our scientists are simply saints

https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1758941452942324042?s=20

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you please provide evidence for this?


Yes, of course the temperatures fluctuate quite a bit, and the temperatures at the poles are increaing more than the temperatures at the equator,
As you say there is no denying that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing.


Actually that is science. The projections are based on models derived from the scientific data. They fit the observed data and then make predictions about what is likely to happen given different scenarios. But it's not prophecy.


Scientists are trying to show what will happen if we continue to delay in taking action. The propaganda comes for the big fossile fuel companies who decades ago started political lobbying and a massive disinformation campaign. They spend billions on it each year. Why? Because they receive trillions of dollars in government subsidies.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates May 2019, IMF, viewed 14 March 2021, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509.


Really? Do you have any data to support that claim?


While this may change things a little, the declining rates are nowhere near enough to make much of an impact.


Again, do you have any data to support that claim?


You are deceived. The evidence is clear and there is total consensus among climate scientists that climate change is due to human causes.


This is irrelevant.


Do not under-estimate the human propensity for stupidity.


Yes, other industries have a vested interest too. But if you are looking for someone with a interest in hiding the truth look at the fossile fuel companies first. The fossile fuel industy has everything to lose in this. Trillion of dollars to lose (see above). They have a lot of money and power and have a vested interest in delaying action on climate change.
But the scientists are just doing their job.


Indeed. So look at the facts. Look at the actual scientific data. Not what the news reporters are telling you, not what the fossile fuel comanies are telling you, or even the renewable energy companies are telling you. Look at the science. Because despite all the mocking that has gone on here, this is a very serious issue. If the scientists are right, then the world is in trouble and needs to take action now.

But, even if the scientists are wrong, or are being overly alarmist, and we do take action, what have we lost? We would have moved to cleaner energy solutions, invested in a future that is sustainable, reduced air pollution, found more efficient, cost effective solutions to our energy needs.

S-Tea
There is obviously not full consensus. How can we trust you when you say things like this?

For ex, whether the Smithsonian removed all giantism evidence from the US or not, they tried, so that they could say that there was a “consensus” that no giantism ever existed in the ancient US. They are unreliable, bc any inquiry will show that most of the evidence is untouched! It is all the burial mounds of ancient cities that rebelled and defeated giants, now in parks all over the US. The latest known and in written narrative is the Payute princess book about Lovelock Cave about 1800. M. Long and _ Ferrierra.

This is how modern science has acted for decades.

 

[Sereni-tea]

S-Tea
There is obviously not full consensus. How can we trust you when you say things like this?

I'm not asking you to trust me.

For ex, whether the Smithsonian removed all giantism evidence from the US or not, they tried, so that they could say that there was a “consensus” that no giantism ever existed in the ancient US. They are unreliable, bc any inquiry will show that most of the evidence is untouched! It is all the burial mounds of ancient cities that rebelled and defeated giants, now in parks all over the US. The latest known and in written narrative is the Payute princess book about Lovelock Cave about 1800. M. Long and _ Ferrierra.

This is how modern science has acted for decades.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[EarlyActs]

S-Tea
There is obviously not full consensus. How can we trust you when you say things like this?

For ex, whether the Smithsonian removed all giantism evidence from the US or not, they tried, so that they could say that there was a “consensus” that no giantism ever existed in the ancient US. They are unreliable, bc any inquiry will show that most of the evidence is untouched! It is all the burial mounds of ancient cities that rebelled and defeated giants, now in parks all over the US. The latest known and in written narrative is the Payute princess book about Lovelock Cave about 1800. M. Long and _ Ferrierra.

This is how modern science has acted for decades.

(Long and Ferreira are not the names related to the Payute princess; they made a film on giant evidences in the US from period articles, photos, digs, collections, and state or county parks across the country

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm not asking you to trust me.


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

It does. It is an example of science fraud which is rampant. Stop looking at just one thing and open your mind.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Sure. Did you ask the op to do the same? The onus is on the op to prove the op, not me to disprove it.

Declining population
WHO promoting DDT
I cannot find the article showing the ice caps stable over the last seven years but HERE's a NASA article showing growth over the last four. I'll try to track down the other article.

Your first 2 links are not what I asked for. You claimed that the metrics for the subjects Frank posted had improved and not worsened. I asked for data for that. Your NASA link was more interesting, and encouraging.

Stop making excuses. The point is not that temperatures change, nor that the planet may be permanently warming. The point is the op is making claims without showing any evidence, much less any proof, but rather than ask him for evidence you're asking me when the onus is not on me. Your double standards are showing.

You misjudge me. The op provided a link to his initial claim. Other assertions he made I was already familiar with, so why ask for evidence I was already aware of? Your assertions that metrics were improving I was not familiar with, so asked where you obtained that information. I was trying to further my own knowledge; not accuse you.

I understand that's what they do. I also understand science is not speculation.

No, Scientists are trying to show what they think will likely happen. Big difference.

Yes, of course. Apologies for my poor wording.

LOL! What you mean to imply is "The propaganda comes ONLY from the 'big fossil fuel companies'," when the fact is propaganda comes from many sources, including the IMF. The IMF is governed by the exact same people who subsidize the fossil fuel business. It's not just them, though. As much as 60% of money market accounts are invested in oil. Maybe more if we include gas. You and I (or anyone with an IRA containing money markets) are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

Yes, fossil fuels is a generic term that includes gas, crude oil, petroleum products as well as coal. And you are exactly right - we are all contributing to these industries from our taxes. This is where we need to put pressure on our governments.

You don't know that.

You said "The only firm item in the bullet list is the sudden extreme increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases but it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes."
There is a lot of data that shows what is from 'natural' causes and what is from human causes. It is well established that the increase is from human causes.

There are a bunch of people who believe there is going to be a great tribulation that will last seven years and destroy a third of the earth's population. Many of them believe it will happen any day now. They read the doomsday predictions by rags like US News and World Report and see Revelation in every page. US News is a secular version of religious apocalypse. The only difference is the secularists think themselves gods able to change the planet, controlling it and its population. I hope you're not one of either group.

I am not one who buys into the idea of the great tribulation. However I do believe that we humans have the capacity to improve the current climate crisis, but not through control, but through adoption of cleaner energy sources.

Ad hominem noted.

I never said otherwise. I did, in fact, plainly state, "I do not deny collective human behavior adversely effects the environment in adverse ways," at the end of Post 20. Human influence is not a point in dispute or question.

Glad to hear it.

It's not irrelevant. It's an example of 1) human intervention adversely affecting the environment, 2) science and politics getting their original conclusions wrong, and 3) prior propaganda masquerading as science. It happens quite often.

I see it every day when people post non sequiturs, red herrings, ad hominem, and other fallacious arguments like those present in post 29.

Well, first, It's not possible for scientists to be wrong or "overly alarmist" according to those who use labels like "climate danger." Likewise, science is neither wrong nor alarmist. Those are moral terms, not scientific terms. Most importantly, what we've lost is our civilized civilization, and perhaps democracy. Your post is a case example of this because it was you, not me, who attacked others personally - leaving the specific subject of the op to do so. That makes you part of the problem to be solved because a reasonable, rational, cogent, and coherent conversation cannot be had with those who think, "you are deceived," is a rational argument, and do not see the relevance when scientific data is abused, or incorrectly believes the oil companies are the only source of propaganda.

Please calm down. I wrote that you were decieved because you indicated that "it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes." when in fact it is quite well known. This was not meant as a personal attack - just a simple correction.

All of which is happening. Woulda, coulda - doing. Europe's energy efficiency ratings are the lowest in the world. Asia and the US fall in the top ten.

We need to encourage all governments to transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources.

 

[Josheb]

Your first 2 links are not what I asked for.

Yes, it is. @Frank Robert made statements based on a (non-scientific) magazine article without providing any evidence and listed five specific areas again without any evidence, to justify the op, and I selected three of those five arenas and provided actual scientific data from sources within or affiliated with the United Nations and/or the US government. Now the relevance is incorrectly denied revealing a lack of insight. That is ironic.

You claimed that the metrics for the subjects Frank posted had improved and not worsened.

The NASA data shows point 2 in his numbered list wrong. According to Statistica, the second half of point 2 is also verifiably false. The number of hurricanes worldwide has decreased in the last 22 years and although there are individual years in which their number increases above average, the mode (most frequently occurring score) is well below the mean (average). The same thing proves true with cyclones and costs of damages per year.

I asked for data for that data.

Without doing the same with the op. Double standards. Prejudicial double standards. So, I'll repeat an earlier point: the onus is on this op to prove this op correct, valid, and veracious, not on me to disprove it.

Your NASA link was more interesting, and encouraging.

Then adjust your thinking, and your posts accordingly.

You misjudge me.

Another ad hominem.

No, I did not. Either the mention of me will be kept out of the posts or not. Every time the posts are made about the posters and not the posts it's an irrational argument.

Yes, of course. Apologies for my poor wording.

Meaningless in light of the fact the same problem continues in Post 37.

You said "The only firm item in the bullet list is the sudden extreme increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases but it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes." There is a lot of data that shows what is from 'natural' causes and what is from human causes. It is well established that the increase is from human causes.

Yes, there is a lot of data proving human influence, bt that does not preclude long-term cycles. Every scientist worth the letter after his name readily acknowledge we've been collecting data (in most cases) for (only) about 100 years and backwards projections are based on models into which hypotheticals, or "educated guesses" are plugged. An educated guess is still a guess (speculation), and in light of the data I have provided there is plenty of reason to doubt both the models and their projections (as well as the political and media selective use for propaganda purposes.

I am not one who buys into the idea of the great tribulation.

Good. Was the point being made understood? If so, show it.

However I do believe that we humans have the capacity to improve the current climate crisis, but not through control, but through adoption of cleaner energy sources.

Can it be done rapidly and, if so, can it be done rapidly in good ways and/or bad ways (for example, a third world war would certainly have dramatic effects on the environment that are egregious in the shirt-term but might be exceedingly beneficial long-term).

Think before answering.

Glad to hear it.

The point is you were wrong. You started this conversation prejudicially with incorrect assumptions and nothing has been done to change that problem.

Please calm down.

Good bye.


Let me know when you can and will stick to the op and I'll reconsider trading posts with you.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you please provide evidence for this?


Yes, of course the temperatures fluctuate quite a bit, and the temperatures at the poles are increaing more than the temperatures at the equator,
As you say there is no denying that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing.


Actually that is science. The projections are based on models derived from the scientific data. They fit the observed data and then make predictions about what is likely to happen given different scenarios. But it's not prophecy.


Scientists are trying to show what will happen if we continue to delay in taking action. The propaganda comes for the big fossile fuel companies who decades ago started political lobbying and a massive disinformation campaign. They spend billions on it each year. Why? Because they receive trillions of dollars in government subsidies.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates May 2019, IMF, viewed 14 March 2021, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509.


Really? Do you have any data to support that claim?


While this may change things a little, the declining rates are nowhere near enough to make much of an impact.


Again, do you have any data to support that claim?


You are deceived. The evidence is clear and there is total consensus among climate scientists that climate change is due to human causes.


This is irrelevant.


Do not under-estimate the human propensity for stupidity.


Yes, other industries have a vested interest too. But if you are looking for someone with a interest in hiding the truth look at the fossile fuel companies first. The fossile fuel industy has everything to lose in this. Trillion of dollars to lose (see above). They have a lot of money and power and have a vested interest in delaying action on climate change.
But the scientists are just doing their job.


Indeed. So look at the facts. Look at the actual scientific data. Not what the news reporters are telling you, not what the fossile fuel comanies are telling you, or even the renewable energy companies are telling you. Look at the science. Because despite all the mocking that has gone on here, this is a very serious issue. If the scientists are right, then the world is in trouble and needs to take action now.

But, even if the scientists are wrong, or are being overly alarmist, and we do take action, what have we lost? We would have moved to cleaner energy solutions, invested in a future that is sustainable, reduced air pollution, found more efficient, cost effective solutions to our energy needs.

Models are not science. Haven’t you noticed the models don’t get a week right, but are to be trusted about things 50 years out?

 

[EarlyActs]

Your first 2 links are not what I asked for. You claimed that the metrics for the subjects Frank posted had improved and not worsened. I asked for data for that. Your NASA link was more interesting, and encouraging.



You misjudge me. The op provided a link to his initial claim. Other assertions he made I was already familiar with, so why ask for evidence I was already aware of? Your assertions that metrics were improving I was not familiar with, so asked where you obtained that information. I was trying to further my own knowledge; not accuse you.



Yes, of course. Apologies for my poor wording.



Yes, fossil fuels is a generic term that includes gas, crude oil, petroleum products as well as coal. And you are exactly right - we are all contributing to these industries from our taxes. This is where we need to put pressure on our governments.



You said "The only firm item in the bullet list is the sudden extreme increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases but it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes."
There is a lot of data that shows what is from 'natural' causes and what is from human causes. It is well established that the increase is from human causes.



I am not one who buys into the idea of the great tribulation. However I do believe that we humans have the capacity to improve the current climate crisis, but not through control, but through adoption of cleaner energy sources.



Glad to hear it.



Please calm down. I wrote that you were decieved because you indicated that "it's not known whether this is a cycle, or how much may be cyclic, and how much is due solely to human causes." when in fact it is quite well known. This was not meant as a personal attack - just a simple correction.



We need to encourage all governments to transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources.

Clean? As in windmill props buried in the ground bc unrecyclable? Child labor for lithium batteries in Africa? Unpredictable fires? What is dirty about US built gas cars?