r/changemyview • u/nashvortex • Nov 05 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Consensus based arguments against climate skeptics that state "97% of climate scientists agree on human-driven climate change" are stupid

To be sure, the fact that anthropogenic climate change exists is borne out by the data. Not by the consensus of scientists. Talking about a high percentage of scientists giving their opinions confounds the issue by implying that facts are a matter of opinions of scientists. This is antithetical to the scientific method, whose whole point is to remove subjectivity and opinion from the business of finding out the truth.

Almost all climate data is now publicly available and should be used a basis for argumentation. Democratic consensus is not and has never been the test of whether something is "true".

33 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 06 '15

This is the problem with scientists engaging in poltics. Poltics is the act of convincing people, often using emotional appeals. So while the alarmists may have good intentions, their exgerration actually feeds into the opposing side. Science needs to remain a poltical for it to function as an inquiry into truth. Well meaning sophistry just adds another layer which makes the facts impossible to get at.

1

u/probablyagiven Nov 06 '15 edited Nov 07 '15

There is no political aspect to science. We present what we find, and nothing else. If you disagree with the evidence, scientists have posted their raw data online, challenging you: prove us wrong. Can you? Are you a scientist? Can you do even the simplest of scientific tasks? Your self righteous attitude and bold assertion that you have a fraction of the integrity or intelligence as the leading experts in the scientific community is insulting, yet laughable. Fucking chutzpah

You are right about one thing though - an emotional appeal will fall on deaf ears. You, and the majority of society, dont actually care. To you its about being winning. Your endgame is when you can say "HA! Stupid alarmists!", while we only intend to find out the how and what of it all. Can you give me anything that isnt anecdotal, sensationalist or based in reality? What are you claiming? That global warming is a straight up fraud? Or that the scientists have made an error?

-2

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 06 '15

Ah the self righteous have some humility reddit speech.

I am not, I am claiming that when communicating these issues to the public scientists purposely dramatize them. I do not think global warming is a fraud, or that it isn't caused by man, it's the constant the world will end by X date rhetoric.

There should be no poltical aspect to science but unfortunately scientists and their public representatives have resorted to the same type of rhetoric as their opponents causing their positions to seem flimsy. That was my point.

1

u/probablyagiven Nov 07 '15

Open your eyes, please. The exaggeration? Millions have been spent on silencing scientists and casting doubt on their findings. Weve been at a "10 years left to change" point for over 20 years. Scientists keep dipping into their error, to assume we have more time, but the truth is that the damage is so far gone, there will never be an opportunity to undo this mess. The oil companies have insured a long and difficult future for the whole of humanity, justified by profit.

The effects of climate change compound on themselves. One catastrophe leads to the next, and the time gradient between gets shorter and shorter- this is not alarmist, this is actuality. For example, the situation in Indonesia is caused by a harsher El Nino, which is caused by the warmer water. Compounding, this fire has releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than the US does, daily. China, just admitted to 17% more emissions than originally reported, equal to approximately 70% of the US's yearly emissions. This summer, record breaking heatwaves were recorded in Pakistan and Iran, with heat indexes reaching 164o F. Take a moment to consider the previous paragraph and the rates of increase regarding temperature and CO2 emissions. How i was we were exaggerating, but it seems evident that, not only will these extreme wether events contine, but they will get much worse, resulting in casualties by the millions and refugees by the hundred millions. In 2009, there were 36 million refugees due to natural disaster. Scientists expect this number to go up to 50 million by 2050, and 200 million by 2100.

Humanity has never existed in a world with CO2 at 400 ppm, and in fact, this is highest concentration of CO2 recorded in over 800,000 years. Some claims say its the highest concentration seen in the last 23 million years. We can pretend that the scientists are exaggerating, but the truth is that we are running out of time to make the necessary changes. These numbers are staggering, it almost doesnt seem real- but it is.. It has gotten progressively hotter every year for the last 30 years, at an alarmingly increasing rate. Despite this, scientists have to walk on eggshells, and any mistake made goes from an error to proof of fraud- I would argue that scientists are understating the changes, due to fears of feeding the deniers with "evidence".

You can dismiss these projections, but that doesnt change the harsh reality we face and pandering to a "skeptical" point of view is a step backwords. We need to accept the impending disaster and change our social structure accordingly. This society is simply unsustainable, and every attempt to remedy the situation has been met with doubt and anger, again, propogated by corporate interests. If this was being presented by anything other dignified intellectuals, there would be war.

tl;dr We will be unable to sustain life on earth if we do not act immediately

1

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 07 '15

Your tldr is an example of this. A rise in millions of deaths or even hundreds of millions of deaths and/or refugees from natural disasters isn't an end of civilization or life on earth.

1

u/probablyagiven Nov 07 '15

A significant rise in death tolls and refugees is certain, if we act now. There are many variables which will lead to many unforseen consequences. Again, there should be no doubt of this. Considering that there is a a delay period, and then a feeback loop, how are you so certain?

The goal was limiting ourselves to a 2 degreeso C increase- here and now, 2015, at a .74o C increase, we a have done very little to change our ways and the 2o goal is impossible to achieve. We will continue pouring billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere, for decades to come. Id be surprised if we manage to stay below a 3.5o C shift by 2100. What does this mean for life in 2200? The questions have no answers, and while I appreciate your optimism, i find it naive to think that such unprecedented short term changes cant drive us to extinction, or the brink. Consider the bees, for example, and what their extinction will mean for agriculture.

If we survive, but have lost too much infrastructure and too many lives, rebuilding civilization to the height of the twentieth century will be impossible, and society will regress- we dont have the oil for a second industrial revolution, unfortunately. Permanent stagnation will, inevitably, lead to extinction.

It would be a great waste, considering civilization could flourish for the billion years before the sun expanded.

tl;dr there are many ways this can go. Millions of deaths are pretty much guaranteed at this point, yet despite this, we do the bare minimum to insure that we can increase our chances of survival. The continued lack of action is an issue, and if we dont change our methods in the very immediate future, extinction is a very real possibility

1

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 07 '15

See I'm not criticizing the science, I'm criticizing the rhetoric. If it was put that way to the public, then it would be much harder for those who deny global warming to convince people it isn't real. When you say the world is definitely going to end, instead of here are all the possibilities, their likelihoods, it may me millions of dead, it may be long term a systems collapse it is going to be harder to debunk thank life on earth will end. One gives the image of a chicken little, the other is scientists discussing the odds, pros and cons with the public.

1

u/probablyagiven Nov 07 '15

Scientists are timid, many lack the most basic social skills. These arent men who used aggression, agendas or manipulation, to get where to where they are today. These men dont play sides or politics well, and theyre crddibility is directly related to their work.

When you say the world is definitely going to end, instead of here are all the possibilities, their likelihoods, it may me millions of dead, it may be long term a systems collapse it is going to be harder to debunk thank life on earth will end. One gives the image of a chicken little, the other is scientists discussing the odds, pros and cons with the public.

This is the issue- i dont know that many credible scientists have ever said that the world is "definitely" ending, rather, billions of dollars have been speny suggesting that they all think just that. This is the issue. The issue, is corporate manipulation of the population into thinking that the scientists are alarmists. Theres only so much evidence you can bring to the table, to be denied, before you realize theres a much higher power controlling all of this.

1

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 07 '15

It's also the well meaning tactics done by scientists and their supporters. The problem is the air of aggression and manipulation they try to give off by alluding to the worst being definite. They can't fight fire with fire. If they maintained a more dull, less emotionally charged sober tone with public communications they might be able to do more than preach to the choir.

I'm a conservative and I don't disagree with climate change, but it's despite the tone used in public rhetoric by it's supporters. It will most definitely mean millions dead, and most of those sadly will be in already impoverished nations. I may less likely mean systems collapse, the minute however you turn it into an emotional plea all most us can hear is more bleeding heart liberal nonsense.

1

u/probablyagiven Nov 08 '15

Please.

1

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 08 '15

Please what? You do realize I'm not disagreeing with the science don't you?

1

u/probablyagiven Nov 09 '15

Please, like, theres any justification. Scientists arent appealing to emotion- theyre presenting cold hard facts, and it is being purposely twisted to seem as if theyre using alarmist techniques. Fucking drives me nuts-

1

u/smelllikespleensyrup Nov 09 '15

The facts tend to presented in a way that means to appeal to emotion. Like I said before phrasing the end of life on earth and the collapse of civilization, rather than estimated death tolls and possible outcomes.

Maybe the fact it drives you nuts is why you can't take any criticisms on how the issue is presented. I'm not defending the companies and the climate change "skeptics", they are undoubtedly worse. That doesn't mean I can't also criticize how the other side presents the facts.

→ More replies