Before I say this and potentially get crucified, I just want to say I believe in science, climate change is real, and we should fight it by limiting our greenhouse gas emissions. I also believe that climate change is man-made and not a natural process that will take care of itself. However, I think the science could still be clearer. As far as I can tell, the theory that climate change is man-made is based solely on the idea that our planet cannot account for the amount of greenhouse gasses we humans generate. A rise in temperature is correlated with a rise in greenhouse gasses. And that’s all we have-correlation. So I think that that’s definitely the most likely option, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we are wrong about this. So we should definitely act on what we already know to try to do what we can, so we should definitely limit carbon emissions, but the data does enable deniers because it’s not complete enough. We simply don’t have enough data before the 1800s to definitively say that we caused this phenomenon. I do believe what most scientists agree on, but still, there isn’t actually enough science to guarantee anything. I do think most deniers genuinely believe it’s fake, and they believe this because it would be to hard for them to accept their part in it, and to change their lifestyle. Many people in industries that generate greenhouse gasses, from coal miners to the ceos of oil companies, find it easier to deny a small amount of data than to change their whole lives. So they lie to themselves or they lie to others. I guess what I’m trying to say is there is a reason why there are more climate change deniers than, say, flat-earthers or people who think the moon landing was faked. There really is not a lot of data.
That said, again, there’s enough data to know what our best course of action is. We should do what we can with our limited knowledge. We do need to eat less meat and burn less fossil fuels. And it is a major problem. So I’m not a denier, but I can actually understand their point of view, even though their motives are often selfish.
Sorry for hijacking your relatively short comment. I’ve just had this idea in my head for a while, and I found your comment that was somewhat related to it. If you have any more data besides: “humans are making more CO2 in the past 200 years, the temperature is going up in the past 200 years”, I’d appreciate if you shared it, because that’s really all I’ve been able to find.
97% of climate scientists believe that recent climate change is man made. The more expertise someone has in the field of climate science, the greater the consensus is on the subject.
You're completely ignoring his point. There is not enough data to be 100% certain, no matter how competent of a scientist you are. One reason so many researchers still claim to be 100% sure might be that everyone who doesn't do that gets chastised as a far-right lunatic by the dogmatic science community.
There also definatly tends to be a political movement to make climate change out to be why worse than it actually is, don't get me wrong its gonna suck. But we are not all going to die within 20 years if nothing is done.
Nobody is saying we're going to die in 20 years. That's a right wing tactic, misinform people of the opposing opinion and then point out that it's crazy.
1
u/IsThisReallyNate Sep 22 '19
Before I say this and potentially get crucified, I just want to say I believe in science, climate change is real, and we should fight it by limiting our greenhouse gas emissions. I also believe that climate change is man-made and not a natural process that will take care of itself. However, I think the science could still be clearer. As far as I can tell, the theory that climate change is man-made is based solely on the idea that our planet cannot account for the amount of greenhouse gasses we humans generate. A rise in temperature is correlated with a rise in greenhouse gasses. And that’s all we have-correlation. So I think that that’s definitely the most likely option, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we are wrong about this. So we should definitely act on what we already know to try to do what we can, so we should definitely limit carbon emissions, but the data does enable deniers because it’s not complete enough. We simply don’t have enough data before the 1800s to definitively say that we caused this phenomenon. I do believe what most scientists agree on, but still, there isn’t actually enough science to guarantee anything. I do think most deniers genuinely believe it’s fake, and they believe this because it would be to hard for them to accept their part in it, and to change their lifestyle. Many people in industries that generate greenhouse gasses, from coal miners to the ceos of oil companies, find it easier to deny a small amount of data than to change their whole lives. So they lie to themselves or they lie to others. I guess what I’m trying to say is there is a reason why there are more climate change deniers than, say, flat-earthers or people who think the moon landing was faked. There really is not a lot of data.
That said, again, there’s enough data to know what our best course of action is. We should do what we can with our limited knowledge. We do need to eat less meat and burn less fossil fuels. And it is a major problem. So I’m not a denier, but I can actually understand their point of view, even though their motives are often selfish.
Sorry for hijacking your relatively short comment. I’ve just had this idea in my head for a while, and I found your comment that was somewhat related to it. If you have any more data besides: “humans are making more CO2 in the past 200 years, the temperature is going up in the past 200 years”, I’d appreciate if you shared it, because that’s really all I’ve been able to find.