People keep stating this, but what is the basis? Beyond a doubt, there will be a lot of claims out there from deniers that climate change isn't causing the problem, whether true or not.
Since when was proof required when talking about climate change? If there was actual proof that human activity makes a difference, there wouldn't be any denial.
Some of the most extreme assertions about climate change are strongly disputable or outright wrong (for example, even the current high-end estimates wouldn't set records for Earth's temperature--merely the hottest in the Quaternary). It's not hard for many people to go from "this theory is partially wrong" to "there is no validity anywhere in the theory."
I don't know anyone that denies that climate change is real, but I know plenty of people that deny that it's caused by us. To these people it's just caused by God. A "sign of the times" if you will.
People have been trained to be individual consumers of both products and information. They'll believe something so long as it's easy to fit in with their other opinions. There is very little way of me understanding climate change science myself, but I'm willing to believe climate scientists, but this is actually an act of faith, I can't independently confirm that climate change is caused by humans, just say that it's very likely.
My Dad is a little bit like Donald Trump in how he searches the Internet for things which support his already well held views; he thinks that climate change is a hoax. When I quote him this brilliant tweet from Scott Westerfeld:
"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."
He just laughs and tell's me about fake news sites he's read as a counter point.
This is a great piece of research anyway; I love that people largely are willing to hedge their bets/beliefs and agree that investing in renewables is massively important, even though a lot of those people don't believe in climate change!
At this point in time people who deny climate change is occurring are impervious to logic and reason. They are like people who deny evolution or the people who believe the Earth is around 10,000 years old. Nothing is going to convince them they are wrong.
It's too burdensome to ask that all articles about the detrimental effects of climate change present a proof of said claims. At some point in time it's pointless to engage in an endless reproving of claims that most sane people already believe in.
Sometimes I wonder if people indeed believe climate change isn't real. I have difficulty imagining that there are so many that believe it's a myth.
Maybe what is more common is that people do believe climate change is real, but they also think it doesn't really matter in long run - because of maybe something like a black swan event or something - dont know. So they see all this as just fear mongering.
My guess is that most people who deny climate change, may actually mean that humans are not the primary reason for climate change. Since this topic has been politicized a lot, it has shifted the meaning of what people mean when they deny climate change.
Regarding the data, it's not very conclusive. Given the scale of time over which data has been collected, is it sufficient to create a reliable model and predict the future changes in climate?
Even if we were to assume that everyone agreed that human activities are the cause of climate change, it would still require huge amount of participation and co-operation among countries across the globe to fix it. That is impossible.
This is measurably false. Climate change denial is a pretty obvious example that hurts everyone. The facts are available, relatively easy to find, but people still tow their party lines about it being a "hoax from China", or some such nonsense.
Well there is a lot of false information out there about climate change and it's probable influence on the planet. Things have gotten out of hand with how polarised this issue is. Many people on the right don't believe in climate change. A little of this is because the time scales were off in some early predictions such as An Inconvenient Truth. This was a good wake up call to many but it also exaggerates the rate of change to the point that many of the predictions should have already had massive negative impacts. This leads people to think they've been lied to. Screaming at them and telling them they're ignorant climate change deniers does little to encourage this. To think they don't care about the survival of the human race is not accurate. They just don't think it's at risk. IMHO the truth without the us verses them stuff is the key. I think 13 Misconceptions About Global Warming by Veritasium on YouTube is a perfect example of this. Yes it's easy to get mad at people when the fate of the world is on the line but that's not as productive as trying to understand them and reaching out to them.
Hmmm. Imagine for a moment that someone argued: "this is such a cold winter! See, I told you global warming is a hoax!"
That would be laughable. Yet people have no concerns about cherry picking anecdotal evidence when they say "see, it's so hot today, that means global warming".
Some people are just super stubborn about it because they don't want to be wrong. I used to work with a guy who said climate change wasn't real, then after about a year of being the only person at work with that viewpoint, he accepted that it was real, but with the caveat that it's a good thing. He said that man-made global warming was going to help hold off the next ice age, so warming the planet now will pre-emptively save lives in the future. That makes no sense though, because we're experiencing extreme weather and mass extinction right now, and the next ice age isn't supposed to happen for over a thousand years.
reply