Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

Why People Don't Believe In Climate Science

Recommended Posts

This well help you understand why people like @Delano and 40% of Americans, some very well "educated," are deniers of man made climate change and why those who believe the science not not moved to do anything about it.

 

There are many videos and books on the subject of why people deny science.  They explain why people reject the efficacy of vaccinations or even evolution. 

 

I've taken a keener interest in this subject recently because when trying to explain the downside of say an Amazon monopoly or the adverse effects Facebook's dominance of internet, I fail.  I tend to come at people with data and facts. You really have to find some common ground and appeal to people on an emotional basis.

 

Obviously climate change is a FAR more serious problem than Facebook or Amazon could ever be, but they all three share the characteristic of not being perceived as immediate problem.

 

Facebook and Amazon can actually be dealt with in the future, climate change, however, is unique in that if we wait too long to actually deal with it; there will come a time when it will become too late for humanity.  Some believe we have already reached that tipping point.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a bit arrogant to speak for me and worse to misrepresent my position. 

 

To put it simply i have conducted a statistical analysis of the data . I looked at over 200 years of data. The data doesn't match the story. 

 

What analysis have you done Troy? Have you looked at and understood the data. Until you can answer yes we can't discuss this rationally. 

 

In ten years the temperature won't match the predictions. Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change. Some places were getting colder. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, since you failed to point out what I wrote that was inaccurate, I'll take it that to mean you retract the allegation that I misrepresented what you wrote.

 

If you are talking about the question you asked from the other conversation; I chose not to answer it.  You've already made it clear there is nothing that I could write that would change your position. I posted a video there that I felt could explain things more simply, but not surprisingly it had no impact.  As a result, I decided to more on.

 

The video I posted here was really not about you specifically.  Sure I mentioned you by name but that was because I wanted alert you in hopes that you would watch the video.

 

Keep in mind there are actually other people who read these posts, I decided to share the video, because I know I'm not the only one puzzled that otherwise intelligent people would deny science.  Did you watch the video Del?  Indeed did you even watch the other video?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy this is what you wrote

 

This well help you understand why people like @Delano and 40% of Americans, some very well "educated," are deniers of man made climate change and why those who believe the science not not moved to do anything about it

 

You also wrote this

 

Del, since you failed to point out what I wrote that was inaccurate, I'll take it that to mean you retract the allegation that I misrepresented what you wrote.

 

And This 

 

The video I posted here was really not about you specifically.  Sure I mentioned you by name but that was because I wanted alert you in hopes that you would watch the video.

 

You could easily change my mind with facts that deal with the following issues. Even if you could explain one I would reconsider. You seem to conveniently forget that I have analysed over 200 years of economic activity,  temperature and CO2 emissions. The other thing you also seem to forget.  I said even though it is a fiction we should still clean up the environment and cut waste

 

Here are the bullet points in order of ease.

 

The data has the mid 1980's a baseline.

They don't use temperature they use the change in temperature.

They don't provide their souce data. Which makes it impossible to replicate or compare their findings.

Explain how come the scientist didn't notice that the globe was warming, but some parts where cooling. Which is possibly why they changed the name to Global warming.

In the climate scientists' own literature they state modelling temperature is exceedingly difficult. And the past may not be indicative of the future.

Can you find one model that shows a strong link between Production and Global temperature .

 

The last point is difficult because it is a two stage correlation.

 

Finally the Union of Concern Scientist is a not for profit that is combating Climate Change. They say that 80% of their donations goes to funding programs and 4% goes to administration costs. However looking at their tax statements tells a different story. 60% of the contributions they receive pay salary. The average salary per employ is about $99,000. The organisation is in Cambridge Massachusetts, one of the richer cities in America. The median income for a household in Cambridge is about $79,000 - $85,000. Per capita income is about $48,000 - $55,000. So the figures are intentionally misleading and obscured.

 

Waste and consumption of resources is a problem. Climate change scientist don't have the solution. They are misleading people sometimes with good intentions and other times to make money. 

 

So Troy can you show me any statistical data that refutes and of my bullet points. We are talking science and my arguments are based on the numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, my Brother, I have moved on from trying to convince you to agree with 97% of the scientist on the issue of climate change.

 

This is a different conversation. I know I can't help you see reality. I'm just trying to understand why I've failed. 

 

I can tell by your bullet points that you did not watch the video, because several of the points listed were directly addressed--indeed that was the point of the video to address the concerns of climate change deniers. The answer I would give you would come from the science as related in the video.  I doubt the video will change your perspective, you are too dug into your beliefs.

 

I have to admit it would be interesting to learn why you are so rigidly opposed the science and so easily drawn to conspiracies.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I am watching the video i am hearing psychological reasons. not statistics. i knew there wouldn't be any statistics. 

 

Troy I am not using psychological reasoning.  I am using statistics. the statistics don't support their arguments.  I am saying they aren't presenting any credible statistics.

 

So you have yet to respond to my bullet points. 

 

You consistently side step questions you can't or dont want to answer. 

 

Does the video addresses the numbers or Any statement i made. 

 

Also i use less resources than most people always have.

 

The whole video is about psychology my statements are statistical. 

 

You asked me to listen before addresing my bulket points and the statements about the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

 

i await your response. and like you said people are watching. So you can admit you cant counter any if the statistically based arguments.  You can say its not as important as solving the problem. Yiu can say I have a resistance to facts.

 

i know no matter what your answer.  You will not address any of my bullet points.

 

I challenge anyone to find a statistically significant model that links production to climate change.  Thats a big statement and you nor anyone has been able to disprove. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, It is interesting that you asked Pioneer if he looked at your slides before responding, but you clearly did not watch the videos before responding to them.  The video in which several of your bullet points was address is the one I posted in the other conversation.

 

15 hours ago, Troy said:

Indeed did you even watch the other video?

 

No, I do not think the video will answer any questions to your satisfaction.  That video does not exist. Your beliefs are cast in concrete. 

 

While I'd hoped the video might have some impact on you, the video was not just posted for your benefit, but for others who may have questions on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy my post about climate change aren't for you. 

Troy they don't have a credible statistical model. Your argument is that people have psychological blind spots. How can you be so blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del you are asking the wrong question.

 

I know you want to make the science of climate change about me and what I know.  I guess this is a mental trick you are playing with yourself, because it is much easier to disagree with me rather than the vast majority of climatologists who believe climate change is real and that man is causing it.  For the bazillionth time, I did not make the measurements, collect, and interpret the information.  I'm reporting it to you.  In much the same way I'd report on evolution or the structure of an atom.

 

The question that you should be asking is:

 

Does this one guy, even with a nobel prize in an unrelated subject, know more than all the other scientists who study the subject?

 

Why do you take Ivar Giaever's word over Dr. Neil deGrass Tyson's?  Of course the answer is that Ivar's opinion agrees with your opinion--even though Ivar's information conflict with what the vast majority of scientists tell us. 

 

Listening to Ivar was like listening to the GM exec Lutz (I hope Lutz's home in the Florida Keys home was flooded this year) contradict everything that Tyson was saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Britt

@Delano  When you say that some areas of the planet are cooling that does fit the definition of climate change and does not disprove it. Climate change means more extreme fluctuations in weather, not necessarily overall warming since weather systems are more complex than we currently understand. These fluctuations are happening at an abnormal rate regardless. Climate models are just that, models, and cannot be expected to be completely accurate because they are limited by our data collection methods and research, which is underfunded. You cannot argue with the rate of glacier melting, the acidification of oceans due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and the migration of animals and plants to higher altitudes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me restate my position and how i arrived at it. I didnt have an opinion one way or the other. I analysed the data first hand. My reasoning oddly enough aren't the same as people who don't believe in climate change. I  was just as unsuccessful with them. Troy I have no interest in people agreeing with me. i prefer disagreement and the person is thinks about my points. Than agreement without thinking.

I saw that clip with Neil Tyson DeGrasse. He was using anecdotal evidence not statistics.  They argument that climate change is using is about numbers and their relationship. That is my issue. Which noone wants to or is capablable of discussing. 

 

Refute the points he makes with reasoned arguments. 

 

Global warming  is a fiction and the solutuons wont have any effect because it isn't a problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Britt I agree some areas are cooling and some are getting warm. in closing you mention the increase of CO2. So is the increase of CO2 resulting in decreases in temperature? Uou can't have it both ways. You can't say the wide variation in temperature is due to CO2. You can only say that about the increase. If you did you wiykd be saying increasing CO2 results in the temperature going both up and down. You are inferring that in your argument. 

 

Climate Change says man made carbon is causing more extreme weather. I  can see hirw more carbon increases temperature but how does it decrease temperature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 10:04 AM, Troy said:

Del, since you failed to point out what I wrote that was inaccurate, I'll take it that to mean you retract the allegation that I misrepresented what you wrote.

 

If you are talking about the question you asked from the other conversation; I chose not to answer it.  You've already made it clear there is nothing that I could write that would change your position. I posted a video there that I felt could explain things more simply, but not surprisingly it had no impact.  As a result, I decided to more on.

 

The video I posted here was really not about you specifically.  Sure I mentioned you by name but that was because I wanted alert you in hopes that you would watch the video.

 

Keep in mind there are actually other people who read these posts, I decided to share the video, because I know I'm not the only one puzzled that otherwise intelligent people would deny science.  Did you watch the video Del?  Indeed did you even watch the other video?

 

 

 

Can you state what you believe to be my position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Brother Del. Just forget it...

 


 

What in this video, which addressed all of your points refuting climate change, do you still reject?  The video is only 6 minutes long. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I'm sure Al Gore and his massive carbon footprint was one reason I discounted his story, but I can't ignore all the other scientists.  Why would they all lie and deceive us?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe virtually all of the planet's scientific community (save the ones in the pocket of big oil) are all making this up to enrich themselves?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something to ponder. Plants breather in C02 so wouldn't more CO2 increase plant yields.

Also I understand increased CO2 will increase temperature but why should it decrease temperature.

 

Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-...Proxy  Highlight

16 May 2007 ... According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most ... Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, ...

 

 

Water vapor is also involved in climate change. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, and more water vapor increases the potential for greater ozone formation. But more cloud cover, especially in the morning hours, could diminish reaction rates and thus lower rates of ozone formation.

Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detection of climate and environmental change in the big data era Claudie Beaulieu, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton Natural variability in all aspects of the Earth system – including the climate system and ecosystems – presents a formidable challenge to the detection and quantification of change forced by industrial activities. Error in detection can disrupt concerted efforts to respond to the challenges of Earth system change, whereas statistically robust quantification informs our understanding of underlying mechanisms of change and helps to improve predictions into the future. The rate of observed climate change results from the superposition of natural and anthropogenic forcing and its robust estimation needs to objectively detect the timing of changes in the trend as well as their magnitude. Quantifying the rate of climate change is further challenged by “memory”, i.e. red noise, within the climate system, which can lead to overconfidence in the detected change. In this talk, I describe a new approach to separate unsteady long-term change from red noise, which clarifies a key point in the scientific debate related to the recent “hiatus” in warming. Marine ecosystems may also respond to climate change, but detecting these impacts is hindered by the long timescale of memory within the ocean such that time-series analysis of satellite data is still inconclusive as to the sign of change in ocean chlorophyll. Here I show how utilizing both temporal and spatial dependency in the available data reveals the full uncertainty in chlorophyll trends and highlights regions undergoing significant change. More generally, the targeted development of specific statistical techniques is required to process and make full use of the rapidly growing store of Earth system data from models and advancing observational platforms. Space-time modeling in particular is one of my main research directions for the promise it holds to improve detection of climate and environmental change in the era of big data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read he article, it seems reasonable to me, but it does not say that climate change is a hoax.  Indeed it supports climate change, and even references a site which show scientific on consensus. 

 

All the article is saying is that we should not jump to the conclusion that the 2017 hurricane season is a direct result of climate change, because weather (which is obviously different than climate), is impossible to predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is part of the NASA Knows! (Grades 5-8) series.
 

The climate of a region or city is its typical or average weather. For example, the climate of Hawaii is sunny and warm. But the climate of Antarctica is freezing cold. Earth's climate is the average of all the world's regional climates.

Climate change, therefore, is a change in the typical or average weather of a region or city. This could be a change in a region's average annual rainfall, for example. Or it could be a change in a city's average temperature for a given month or season.

Climate change is also a change in Earth's overall climate. This could be a change in Earth's average temperature, for example. Or it could be a change in Earth's typical precipitation patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2017 at 7:01 AM, Troy said:

@Del refer to the link you shared on the other conversation: 

 

Here's the footnote. In case you missed it.

 

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

 

 

Which doesn't mean there aren't dissenting papers. It means they aren't counting them. They also will count any paper that doesn't express an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Del are you saying that so everyone who is reporting 97% is just wrong?  Or are you saying they are imprecise or inaccurate?  If so how far are they off or what is the correct percentage?  

 

Do you not believe the vast majority of the world climatologists believe man isimpact on climate change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I don't understand what you have written. That is why I, like the proverbial dentist, asked you a couple of direct questions to help me understand what are trying to communicate.

 

Do you not believe that majority (even if it is not 97%) of the world's climatologists believe that man is having an man's impact the Earth's climate change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again this is the problem with the 'net, you can find a source for anything to support your belief.  Del how do you think I got the 97% number?  I looked it up.  It is what all the reputable sites including the one from Nasa, you provided, say.

 

Obviously, for whatever reason, you don't believe the percentage provided by the authoritative sources and have apparently found a source that matches your conspiracy theory world view.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×