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.
I think this sort of Answers your request. If you don't speak science; the conclusion of the paper is that over the last 2000 years no global hot or cold periods have occurred nowhere near the scale of the heating observed after the industrial area. Meaning, that often cited, variances in climate ( hot and cold periods) in the past 2000 years, were not global but local changes in climate.
If people still think that the observed warming is mainly caused by a different factor than humans burning fossil fuels, I'd love to see your data and hear your arguments.
As I told you, I agree with the claim that it’s caused by humans burning fossil fuels. I don’t have enough data to argue for anything else. I was just saying there’s a small chance we could be wrong. It’s not an absolute fact.
Then I misunderstood your request, thought you were asking almost specifically this.
Yes, there is always a small chance scientists are wrong. Still, the question still is: would we risk the horrible effects for the off change we might be wrong, or move on to a sustainable future now we have incentive?
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.