I'm about to graduate Uni at the end of the month and have spent most of the time being taught (among other things) how the planet is essentially falling apart.
> Global Climate Change
> Sea Level Rise
> Ocean Acidification
> Global Pollinator Loss
> Habitat Loss
> The ever expanding number of species on the verge of extinction.
The list goes on and on. What I want to know is why do people (and I know this includes some of you one this board) not feel the evidence is substantial for these claims? In all honesty, I want to know what the contempt is about. I have heard all most all the "its happening!" side has to say. Now I would like to hear from you.
Climate Change
Michael Foster
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
principia-scientific.org
notrickszone.com
wattsupwiththat.com
twitter.com
Joseph Ward
Bump
Nathaniel White
It's ideologically and economically inconvenient
Cameron Edwards
Not a single person who browses Veeky Forums, is genuinly interested in science, and is at some stage of science academia denies climate change. If they do, they are missing at least one of those attributes
The people posting climate change denial bait are epic trolls and low functioning autist crossboarders from /pol/ and /x/, so you're unlikely to get a very substantial response here
Anthony Stewart
A few points from the political-economic perspective:
Negative externalities are always overproduced because the economic incentives are to maximize profits. Putting more money into minimizing those externalities (pollution, CO2, etc) cuts into profit. As such, major corporations have a vested interest in ensuring they can still overproduced pollution. For companies where these externalities are extreme (oil, coal, etc), it's cheaper for them to invest in advertisement and "studies" to misinform the public and maintain a good image.
As a rule of thumb when it comes to the international economy, people who stand to lose money are typically more motivated than people who stand it gain. Consider free trade. The average consumer stands to profit from completely free trade. Most people would be better off, but only by a certain amount. The people whose livelihoods depend on protectionism however are obviously much more motivated, and so more politically powerful.
If you apply this to things like the coal industry, the same thing holds true. Coal miners stand to lose far more by CO2 regulation than the average voter stands to gain. This motivates them to motivate their politicians, and those politicians are also potential losers for the same reasons as their voters. They can push legislature through.
Eventually, the misinformation becomes part of a political identity. Believing in global warming becomes a political view. You're anti-working class, anti-Trump, etc. This encourages people to encourage their fellow party members to reject the notion.
At the end if the day, it's simply a matter of the average person not having a real, tangible benefit--only an abstract on.
Grayson Nguyen
This is OP.
I am aware of the economic issues associated with global climate change and the like. To be completely honest, even at the end of my studies I don't have a solution to any of the problem that is both economically viable and will produce the necessary ecological outcomes. What I really want to get at is whether or not there is a scientific (such as lack of evidence, insufficient papers, etc.) that are fueling the "anti-climate change" view, or if it is purely economic. I can sympathies with the economic stand point, but I want to know if that is the whole platform?
Nathaniel Diaz
The problem is that nobody actually cares. Any time somebody comes a long with an idea they say is to address those problems, it's really just a huge scam. EPA regulation LITERALLY makes pollution worse because the factories still exist in other countries, but now emissions are also being released to ship the goods back over seas.
> Sea Level Rise
> Ocean Acidification
> Habitat Loss
> The ever expanding number of species on the verge of extinction.
All issues that can't be solved unless you want the USA to invade other countries and force them to change, and nobody has actually suggested doing this. One thing to focus on that isn't a complete waste of time is saving the bees.
Jace Ross
There's only one problem: overpopulation. We're the problematic primates and scourge on the planet
There's one solution: benevolent merit based eugenics
Austin Jenkins
>There's only one problem: overpopulation
>There's one solution: benevolent merit based eugenics
Cameron Allen
Eugenics is the solution though. I'm gonna make an eugenics program to create a human as close to a golden retriever as possible. Every day is gonna be the best day ever, just go to the park and throw balls, it's the pinnacle of existence.
Charles Powell
Literally what's wrong with eugenics. Hitler and forced sterilization is not an argument.
Easton White
The mostly do not understand. Or don't care. To busy watching Exxon, ford, lawer and medicine advertisements inbetween the Big Bang theory to think about things they don't understand.
Read Noam Chomsky, "manufactured consent"
John Ward
You got it all wrong the coal companies motivate their politicians and the media who in turn motivate the workers to vote against their own interest
Adrian Lopez
>I want to know why retards think conspiracy theories and psudo science is just as reasonable as research and facts.
just why user, why?
Wyatt Adams
That would make sense IF all those developing countries hadn't signed climate agreements that we ourselves abstained from. Because they're less developed they are more vulnerable to climate change, and they realize this.
Isaiah Flores
You're not an argument
Adrian Adams
This is OP
In at least my field, there is a persistent view that if you don't agree with the entire narrative you are a heretic and and aren't worth the effort to educate. The result is that a lot of people I know can't seem to wrap their head around the notion that someone honestly disagrees with them on these sorts of things and so no real effort is made to teach the public about them. I think that's kinda bullshit. I think to really get anywhere we need to talk to people across the isle and so would really like to know what the opposition has for talking points, other than just yelling how nothing is proven.
Bentley Edwards
So you have no real argument why eugenics is bad.
Evan Price
I'm not him: I'm just pointing out that you're a massive cockloving faggot.
>So you have no real argument why eugenics is bad.
Also btw that's not an argument. ;)
Gavin Butler
You sound pretty upset.
Christian Lee
You were upset enough to project your own feelings onto me :^)
Christian Gray
What projection? I only asked a simple question and you keep screeching about going back to /pol/
Alexander Nguyen
Where did I tell you to go back to /pol/, dick licker? :^)
Oh right, you're unaware of how you're universally hated here so you don't realize that there are multiple people telling you to gtfo.
Kevin Young
How could I forget that Veeky Forums is extremely liberal and gets triggered by anything that might remind them of /pol/.
Jaxon Williams
Nice strawnan. No, we're just tired of you spamming racebait bullshit.
Caleb Jackson
You are both ruining the thread. Stop with your petty argument of who gets in the last word and just stop replying.
Trust me. You'll feel better about it. Just walk away.
Caleb Gonzalez
Not an argument
Robert Myers
The effects are too gradual for people to care or believe. If there was an exact date that everyone was told the world would suddenly go to shit, people would care.
But climate change is something most ordinary individuals have only ever read about or seen on TV, Americans in particular haven't knowingly experienced it firsthand, so how can people be expected to care.
They are shown the evidence but they can't yet look out the window and see the effects for themselves so they don't pay it any attention, and once they can it will be too late.
In the 2030s and 40s ordinary people are gonna start shitting themselves when the sea levels rise, then and only then will there be universal agreement.
Elijah Walker
>All races are equal goy, evidence that suggests IQ is race related isn't real.
Brody Long
>I want to know what the contempt is about
Firstly anyone who exclaims that "the world is going to end SOON unless you give me something (funding or subsidies in this case)" has earned my immediate mistrust.
Secondly I think that it is a win-win situation. Either it is all a hoax (or at least somehow fabricated by scientists for funding) then I get to laugh at the idiots and if everything is true and the earth is really getting warmer then I will get to enjoy hotter summer (It is pretty cold up hear).
Liam Rodriguez
>the world is going to end SOON unless you give me something (funding or subsidies in this case)
Literally who is saying this?
>It's okay if it's true though because I enjoy being slightly more comfortable at the expense of millions/billions of livelihoods
It's hard to believe you can actually look at this objectively when your views seem entirely based on misanthropy.
Jonathan Mitchell
>Literally who is saying this?
"BE WORRIED BE VERY WORRIED" NYT
>misanthropy
Absolutely not.
I dont want the human species to suffer (aside from a few races) but I am perfectly fine with having longer summers up here.
Logan Collins
What does that headline have to do with supposedly greedy climate scientists?
I've never understood this. Who has more incentive to be motivated purely by economic gain? The scientific community or actual profit-seeking companies?
James Hill
>The ever expanding number of species on the verge of extinction.
New species keep being discovered.
Zachary Lopez
A new species being discovered does not replace one lost to extinction. The issue here is that species, which were common, and serve vital roles in ecosystems we both interact and rely on, are facing extinction. The number of beetles some twat finds in the amazon is irrelevant to that.
Juan Cruz
have you seriously never heard of "white mans welfare"?
Connor Moore
>fiddling with the data as evidenced by climategate and whistleblowers
>weak methodology
>doom and gloom prophesies
>Al Gore lies
>nobody setting a behavioral example (think private jets)
>outright rejection of the only viable solution: nuclear energy
>carbon market involving Goldman Sachs
>Nobody cares China builds about 1-2 coal power plants yet massive complaints on the relatively small coal industry in the Western world
>heavy intertwining with politics (IPCC)
>redistribution of wealth from the West to the developing world (politically left-wing holy grail)
These are some key features that force any rational person into a sceptical mode of information processing.
Come on now. Scientists are humans as well that rely on their paycheck for a living. Climate scientists have built a career that depends on the veracity of AGW.
Jaxson Russell
Could you provide a paper or link that says the data is false or being manipulated?
Dylan Wright
Anthony Howard
First of all, thank you for being the first person to actually give me a source of some sort.
Second, I'm unfortunately not going to address the Notrick zone site or wattsup one, as I feel that both are probably fake. The code on the wattsup one has a lot of odd marks that normal computer scientists don't put in their code (even the comment sections) and it honestly seems to fit the site's narrative too perfectly. Same with the Notricks one, the article fits their narrative too perfectly, (meaning I think it was written only to appease readers) making me think I'm not getting the whole story.
Third, while it does appear that you are correct about the daily mail article showing the data was manipulated, it appears that even after they went back and checked the correct data a similar warming trend was still present. So yes, I do agree they lied, and that is not okay at all. Especially not in science, but it didn't disprove the overall trend.
Fourth, the principle scientific article seems to make the strongest point. Once again you are correct that a scientist lied and once again I concur that that is not acceptable. My followup question, is about how much this paper contributed to the community at large. (not trying to change view, just asking b/c I actually want to know)
Gavin Williams
>dailymail.co.uk
This article and every other one you present is literally misinterpretation of what Bates' complained about
Luke Miller
it's just a jewish plot to eradicate christians and white men, maybe in retaliation for the (((holocaust))). open your eyes, think for yourself.
Zachary Davis
how convenient? everytime information goes against your creed it's a misinterpretation, but when the data is fiddle with to increase carbon taxes it's spot on. we're done falling for your tricks jew, people can now see through your bullshit
Isaiah Barnes
Is climate changing? Yes.
Does it affect us? Yes.
Do we affect it? Lacking evidence.
Is any of this bad? No.
Environments change, creatures adapt, some don't and die off. It's all a dice game without a prize pool.
Elijah Thomas
Fuck it's so obvious now that you put it in those terms. I'm certainly more skeptical than I was yesterday. Thanks
Nolan Butler
call your mum and tell her you're sorry for the mistakes you've made in your life
Adrian Howard
I will, thanks again.