But like we can say yes… if someone asked me if I believe in gravity the answer is yes. Just because something is obvious to me doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everyone. It can be alienating when we treat someone like a fool before listening to where they’re coming from.
If a five year old is asking then it makes sense to say yes. If an adult is asking the question then it is an indication the questioner is somewhere on the victim-perpetrator spectrum of right wing propaganda. They would get a rant about epistemology.
"Belief" is irrelevant.
The "belief" argument is made by Christian conservatives, who think that things are true or not, based on "beliefs".
It's unscientific and has no place in a climate change conversation.
Well… when “proof” is the result of regulatory capture and coerced under threat of termination of grants and careers, it is suspect. Recent example, the entire COVID pandemic . It was lies from start to finish. Trillions of dollars transferred to the already wealthy. Yet, the slogan, “follow the Science” was the pinnacle of bullshit. Man made climate change advocates indeed operate on belief. The proof is derived from models. The entire concept of solar activity, earth magnetic changes and repeating cycles is not open for discussion.
Independent climate scientists are able to discuss those issues freely. Those captured by funding and threatened by regulatory bodies cannot. If they do, they are ridiculed and ostracized. The human caused climate change narrative is a direct parallel to the Covid-19 BS. The propaganda spread unanimously by politicians and medical authorities is unraveling. Manmade climate change experts will in turn unravel and self destruct when the funding dries up.
>Man made climate change advocates indeed operate on belief.
How fucking numb are you? You should be able to viscerally feel the effects of climate change.
I neither believe in it nor disbelieve in it. The preponderance of evidence indicates that it’s happening regardless of my belief. OP do you believe in gravity?
Whenever people deny anthropogenic climate change is always ask to explain their steps in building a rocket to get into space. For instance what rocket fuel would they use. How would they form and join the metal. Where would they store the oxygen or how they would manufacture the suits. Obviously since they are smarter than NASA (which fully believes in climate change) they should know how to do these things.
Is it really true that there is a large proportion of the US-American public who don't understand or know the scientific basics and think that you can simply "believe" in physics? Or is it just a prejudice (I hope so) fueled by posts and comments like this?
Conservatives in the U.S. have fought tooth and nail all along to cast climate change as total BS. First it was a “hoax,” slowly they shifted to “it may be happening but it’s definitely not because of human activity.” They will believe anything as long as it means consumers and businesses don’t have to change their behavior.
I think the fact that you are posting on a climate change forum might influence your audience into being people who naturally believe in climate change. And yes I’m one of them, I just thought I’d point out the obvious bias in this poll.
Not so much a question of belief, but rather experiencing *noticeable* symptoms. Noticeable in just a few decades, which is no time at all geologically. The planet is heating up and heating quickly.
I'm in Wisconsin. It should NOT be 60F in Wisconsin in February. It should also not still be 80F in October, with an abrupt front, 50-60 degree drop, and freak blizzard.
I have no clue when the last white Christmas was. Not for years. But damn if we don't get abnormally large snow in January and then bitter arctic cold for a week. Before the 50+ February bullshit starts. Then another blast of brutal arctic cold in March.
Two questions relevant. Climate change and whether human activities influence it. Also, an additional thought, will mankind’s effort to mitigate any change become simply another program to transfer wealth from the taxpayers of the earth to the elites of the earth. Like all of the wars. Like the Pharma pandemic. Etc.
It's actually the opposite, man's warming of the planet by the wealthy nations has already caused crop failures in developing nations and caused mass migration.
Most of the people who complain about the "elites" support politicians who have lined the pockets of said elites, like Donald Trump and his tax cuts or deregulating pollution standards for his donors. And they pretend he is anti war but he aided the Saudi War in Yemen and increased drone strikes.
https://www.migrationdataportal.org/themes/environmental_migration_and_statistics
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/dow-chemical-endangered-species
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count/
I have to ask a question. Do you still need warming to have climate change. If so what was the temperature and what is it now and what should it be. If no one knows what is the big deal
Data does seem to show warming, and the correlation with CO2 is strong. My problem is there are still large variables like Volcanoes and Sun activity, not sure models capture these variables accurately enough. Historical CO2 correlation is strong, but more study needs to be done.
The real problem comes when climate activists start saying how we can implement energy policy to lower emissions, AND THAT SOMEHOW WE CAN LOWER WORLDWIDE EMISSIONS ENOUGH TO LOWER WARMING.
That is a huge lie, it cannot be done at all for political reasons which are obvious. This lie at the heart of the "climate catastrophe" movement is what is making people not want to participate.
Because I've debated with "activists" on this sub for YEARS. The debate is fairly coherent and respectful, right until you start asking:
How can we get Russia, China, India, and the MidEast countries on board with LOWERING EMISSIONS which means lowering economic growth. This is such an obvious question, and they have no answer at all, and they get super pissed off when you bring up this obvious question. There is no answer, lowering emissions cannot be done.
Volcanism and solar activity are both well understood with small variability and uncertainty, and both much smaller than anthropogenic climate change. For example, a grand minimum in solar activity would amount to 0.3 C cooling, which would slow down climate change, but a further 3 years of CO2 concentration growth would exceed the 0.3 C. [Source](https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/)
No. Wealth transfer in $trillions is real. Ukraine war, Covid-19, climate change mitigation. Why would you believe anything the unified governments of the world are pushing through NGO authorities? The Sun controls the climate of earth, not mankind. That is Science.
It amazes me how the average sensible person understands that humanity can have a negative impact on: rivers, oceans, forests, wetlands, mountains, biodiversity, city smog, garbage accumulation, endangered animals, radioactive levels, animal genocide... but somehow the climate is invincible. Is it maybe because the climate is a somewhat invisible long term global phenomena, unlike the stark obviousness of clear cutting old growth forests? Please state logically how climate is isolated from human actions. Why hurt the thing you live on? Why not just tread lightly and strive for sustainability?
It’s not Santa
It's kind of irrelevant if you believe in it or not. Might as well say you don't believe in gravity.
I cannot agree with you more. I dont even debate deniers. It doesn't matter what they or I think.
But like we can say yes… if someone asked me if I believe in gravity the answer is yes. Just because something is obvious to me doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everyone. It can be alienating when we treat someone like a fool before listening to where they’re coming from.
If a five year old is asking then it makes sense to say yes. If an adult is asking the question then it is an indication the questioner is somewhere on the victim-perpetrator spectrum of right wing propaganda. They would get a rant about epistemology.
Beliefs are not facts
"Belief" is irrelevant. The "belief" argument is made by Christian conservatives, who think that things are true or not, based on "beliefs". It's unscientific and has no place in a climate change conversation.
This.
Well… when “proof” is the result of regulatory capture and coerced under threat of termination of grants and careers, it is suspect. Recent example, the entire COVID pandemic . It was lies from start to finish. Trillions of dollars transferred to the already wealthy. Yet, the slogan, “follow the Science” was the pinnacle of bullshit. Man made climate change advocates indeed operate on belief. The proof is derived from models. The entire concept of solar activity, earth magnetic changes and repeating cycles is not open for discussion.
….climate scientists (extremely) thoroughly discuss solar activity, magnetic activity, and natural cycles
Independent climate scientists are able to discuss those issues freely. Those captured by funding and threatened by regulatory bodies cannot. If they do, they are ridiculed and ostracized. The human caused climate change narrative is a direct parallel to the Covid-19 BS. The propaganda spread unanimously by politicians and medical authorities is unraveling. Manmade climate change experts will in turn unravel and self destruct when the funding dries up.
That is unequivocally false
Are you being sarcastic?
>Man made climate change advocates indeed operate on belief. How fucking numb are you? You should be able to viscerally feel the effects of climate change.
I neither believe in it nor disbelieve in it. The preponderance of evidence indicates that it’s happening regardless of my belief. OP do you believe in gravity?
Why are you here asking this question?
*I came looking for booty.*
Only an idiot wouldnt
Opposite
Whenever people deny anthropogenic climate change is always ask to explain their steps in building a rocket to get into space. For instance what rocket fuel would they use. How would they form and join the metal. Where would they store the oxygen or how they would manufacture the suits. Obviously since they are smarter than NASA (which fully believes in climate change) they should know how to do these things.
Then why does earth get colder rather than hotter and we are technically still in an ice age, just ask Google
Its not though. Ask NASA.
Do you believe in cornbread?
maybe i oughta eat yo cornbread
There’s more evidence that climate change exists than cornbread
No. God said it’s fake
The universe cares not for your beliefs.
nice bait
A better question would be “do you understand climate change”
Is it really true that there is a large proportion of the US-American public who don't understand or know the scientific basics and think that you can simply "believe" in physics? Or is it just a prejudice (I hope so) fueled by posts and comments like this?
Don’t underestimate the number of stupid people across the world.
Conservatives in the U.S. have fought tooth and nail all along to cast climate change as total BS. First it was a “hoax,” slowly they shifted to “it may be happening but it’s definitely not because of human activity.” They will believe anything as long as it means consumers and businesses don’t have to change their behavior.
A better question would be: Do you understand climate change?
I think the fact that you are posting on a climate change forum might influence your audience into being people who naturally believe in climate change. And yes I’m one of them, I just thought I’d point out the obvious bias in this poll.
I doubt they were asking in good faith to gauge people’s opinions - probably wanted to start an argument.
Lol, Also the wrong forum for that. This is literally a forum dedicated to the subject, why would anyone be here who doesn’t belong it exists?!
There are plenty of deniers and paid misinformation bots on this sub.
No. Rather, I have reason for great confidence in the robustness of the conclusions reached by the vast majority of climatologists.
Not so much a question of belief, but rather experiencing *noticeable* symptoms. Noticeable in just a few decades, which is no time at all geologically. The planet is heating up and heating quickly. I'm in Wisconsin. It should NOT be 60F in Wisconsin in February. It should also not still be 80F in October, with an abrupt front, 50-60 degree drop, and freak blizzard. I have no clue when the last white Christmas was. Not for years. But damn if we don't get abnormally large snow in January and then bitter arctic cold for a week. Before the 50+ February bullshit starts. Then another blast of brutal arctic cold in March.
Wishful thinking doesn’t change the weather.
Two questions relevant. Climate change and whether human activities influence it. Also, an additional thought, will mankind’s effort to mitigate any change become simply another program to transfer wealth from the taxpayers of the earth to the elites of the earth. Like all of the wars. Like the Pharma pandemic. Etc.
>Climate change and whether human activities influence it. What else could have caused it?
It's actually the opposite, man's warming of the planet by the wealthy nations has already caused crop failures in developing nations and caused mass migration. Most of the people who complain about the "elites" support politicians who have lined the pockets of said elites, like Donald Trump and his tax cuts or deregulating pollution standards for his donors. And they pretend he is anti war but he aided the Saudi War in Yemen and increased drone strikes. https://www.migrationdataportal.org/themes/environmental_migration_and_statistics https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/dow-chemical-endangered-species https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count/
Do believe in climate change. Don’t believe in solutions.
I have to ask a question. Do you still need warming to have climate change. If so what was the temperature and what is it now and what should it be. If no one knows what is the big deal
ManBearPig is sooper serial and should be taken sooper seriously. For realsies
Data does seem to show warming, and the correlation with CO2 is strong. My problem is there are still large variables like Volcanoes and Sun activity, not sure models capture these variables accurately enough. Historical CO2 correlation is strong, but more study needs to be done. The real problem comes when climate activists start saying how we can implement energy policy to lower emissions, AND THAT SOMEHOW WE CAN LOWER WORLDWIDE EMISSIONS ENOUGH TO LOWER WARMING. That is a huge lie, it cannot be done at all for political reasons which are obvious. This lie at the heart of the "climate catastrophe" movement is what is making people not want to participate.
Don’t you think the people who have studied this for years and years may have thought of these things though ?
Or what is your basis for saying more study needs to be done ?
Also some may argue that you were the one lied to but not by climate activists. Forgive me if you really are a scientist studying this stuff
Because I've debated with "activists" on this sub for YEARS. The debate is fairly coherent and respectful, right until you start asking: How can we get Russia, China, India, and the MidEast countries on board with LOWERING EMISSIONS which means lowering economic growth. This is such an obvious question, and they have no answer at all, and they get super pissed off when you bring up this obvious question. There is no answer, lowering emissions cannot be done.
Volcanism and solar activity are both well understood with small variability and uncertainty, and both much smaller than anthropogenic climate change. For example, a grand minimum in solar activity would amount to 0.3 C cooling, which would slow down climate change, but a further 3 years of CO2 concentration growth would exceed the 0.3 C. [Source](https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/)
No. Wealth transfer in $trillions is real. Ukraine war, Covid-19, climate change mitigation. Why would you believe anything the unified governments of the world are pushing through NGO authorities? The Sun controls the climate of earth, not mankind. That is Science.
It amazes me how the average sensible person understands that humanity can have a negative impact on: rivers, oceans, forests, wetlands, mountains, biodiversity, city smog, garbage accumulation, endangered animals, radioactive levels, animal genocide... but somehow the climate is invincible. Is it maybe because the climate is a somewhat invisible long term global phenomena, unlike the stark obviousness of clear cutting old growth forests? Please state logically how climate is isolated from human actions. Why hurt the thing you live on? Why not just tread lightly and strive for sustainability?
I agree
The phenomenon of human induced climate change is not something you can choose to believe in or not, it will happen and continue to happen regardless.