What further proof do climate deniers need?

0 votes
What further proof do climate deniers need?
asked in Education by
recategorized by

16 Answers

0 votes

No amount of proof will convince them.

They’re like Covid deniers in the hospital, claiming to the end it’s all a conspiracy.

answered by
0 votes

What do you want to give?

The global average temperature has not increased in 120 years:

image

Even during those periods that it has, nobody has ever provided any proof that it’s manmade. Even NASA claims that it is not.

answered by
0 votes

Proof for what? That climate changes? I already believe that. 800 years ago there was a megadrought that deprived lakes of so much water that they had entire forests growing on the exposed land. Since the rain returned, those lakes have re-filled, and the trees are well preserved in their oxygen free depths.

There have been ice ages and all sorts of changes in the climate. The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice age. There was a time when Vikings lived in Greenland, because there was less ice.

What I need proof for is that current change is being caused by anthropogenic CO2, and that the consequences will be catastrophic. I need evidence that the bad consequences of anthropogenic climate change will outweigh the good we get from burning fossil fuels, as well as the benefits of a warmer Earth with more CO2 for plants to thrive.

In the climate change debate, people often forget that under all but the most catastrophic scenarios, the future generations who will benefit from our current mitigation efforts will be much richer than we are. For example, Nigel Lawson points out that even under one of the worst case scenarios studied by the IPCC, failure to act would simply mean that people in the developing world would be “only” 8.5 times as wealthy a century from now, compared to 9.5 times as wealthy if there were no climate change.

Although it is probably true that the “best evidence” suggests a connection between human activities and a warming globe, this fact about the natural world does not automatically justify aggressive government interventions into the economy. Given the historical corruption of governments and the demonstrated resilience of free entrepreneurs, proponents of such measures have a much harder case to make.

EDIT: I am also being told, in the comments, that the climate change we are experiencing now is unprecedented, that we are causing a temperature rise at a rate that has never happened before, except in catastrophes. I need to see evidence for this. I am shown graphs of thermometer readings, usually with a lot of processing to combine readings from a large number of weather stations. This data is on the scale of several decades, maybe a couple centuries going back to at most the late 1800’s, showing a strong upward trend. Problems and accusations of cooking the data to create the desired conclusion aside, these are thermometer readings. They are then compared to proxies like ice core data and tree rings. Not only are these incompatible data sources, they are put on entirely different scales. Many thousands of years are compressed into the same space on the page as a hundred years on the thermometer readings graph.

Worst yet, the thermometer readings are combined on the same graph, as if they are the dame data source, to create the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph.

If the proxy data was valid and accurate, then it should be good up until today. Ice still forms, and trees still grow. Why combine it with thermometer readings, which may be giving us temperatures in entirely different locations.

But the most important thing is the scale. We need to be able to see that there has never been warming as fast as we see now. Show us what the proxies say about the last 100 years, and what they say about the last hundred thousand. Put them on an interactive computer graph, available on the internet, so anyone can scan it, adjust the scale, and see how fast temperatures were changing over any 100 year period.

If I can scroll through such a graph, and not find proxy data for a temperature change as fast as we are seeing now, I will be convinced that human activity is changing the climate.

SHOW ME THE DATA!

answered by
0 votes

To start with, I’ll give kudos to this answer to the question, what scientific proof do we require that the situation is so emergent as to justify wholesale imposition of a regime of curfew, candlelight, and curtailment, to be implemented now, today, this instant.

In addition to which, I require proof of good will. And that’s going to be nearly impossible for the AGW alarmists to provide. For they have demonstrated bad will through:

Hypocrisy - taking advantage of all the things they would deny to us, and refusing to pay any of the price they demand we pay.

Empty virtue signaling - trying to persuade us that we ought to love them for what they do and for giving us such timely warning. (“You just want to persuade the people that you love them so much that they ought to love you back!” - Actor Joseph Cotten in Citizen Kane .)

Sheer, unadulterated spite. The man so many people call Sleepy Joe, I call Snarlin’ Joe. He is the current booby-prize example. I didn’t think anyone would exceed Barack Obama or Christiana Figueres for such spite. Now I know better.

Unscientific methods, that would have gotten me thrown out of Yale College had I tried them. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline” is the booby-prize example of that . Or describing their inability to account for a lack of a warming trend as “a travesty.” The real travesty here is of science.

answered by
0 votes

I’m guessing you ask this question because of recent weird weather and fires, which the media insists as presenting with only such historical context as makes it seem “record”. Usually, it isn’t. All time heat records are declining in frequency, not rising, and for the US, records set in the 1930’s still stand, or have been exceeded only modestly of late. Some particular areas have received record rainfall recently, but the longer term trend for the globe has been only a slight increase in frequency of rainfall over half an inch over the past century. And the warming trend for the globe since we got a satellite record for it beginning in 1979 (the first true global measurement of the temperature of the lowest level of Earth’s atmosphere, which the greenhouse effect is supposed to warm) has been a whopping 0.14 degrees C (0.25 F) per decade . You would not notice a warming of 0.25 degrees F sitting in a room from one minute to the next. That warming is half of what the climate models show should have happened to temperatures in that period, on average, and way below the high range forecasts often used to scare us.

Weather has always been very weird and variable from time to time, and will always be. Uptrends in variability for the whole world are pretty much non-existent. Hurricanes happen. We seem to be in an active period right now, but just before 2014, the US went through its longest spell without a landfalling hurricane of Category 3 of greater on record - over 12 years. Hurricane counts over multi-year periods are tremendously variable, with an apparent high point in the 1940’s. And don’t trust counts further back than that, since before lots of aircraft we knew very little about hurricanes that stayed out at sea.

Breathless reporting on every storm or drought or fire from the media does not count as evidence for an anthropogenic climate crisis.

answered by
0 votes

Not a change denier - change happens.

Am a catastrophe denier. Have been watching catastrophic predictions fizzle for a half century. When I read the research behind the catastrophic projections in the (what is now called click-bait) press, I discover that the catastrophes are always least likely, worst case scenarios. The most likely scenarios are always incremental multi generational change like the measured rise in sea level that works out to a foot over the next century. I am confident that my grandchildren who are now starting their families can move their grandchildren uphill away from the beach at that pace or faster. If that risk keeps you up at night, then move to the mountains or Northern Plains. If every cubic centimeter of naturally occurring ice on the planet melts, St Louis will still be miles from the beach. That is Not likely to happen Ever but if it helps you sleep at night, rural real estate in Missouri is inexpensive So Far.

answered by
0 votes

What further proof do climate deniers need?

None. No one denies the climate. Climate is definitely real and observable.

answered by
0 votes

When you deal in faith, proof is irrelevant.

Climate denial has become an political badge and an article of faith. Evidence is poorly prepared to counter that.

No matter what evidence you provide, they'll move the goalposts, again.

answered by
0 votes

Out of curiosity, has calling someone names ever changed their mind about anything? Would it change yours? As it is, no one “denies” climate. There are some who don’t buy the melodrama surrounding climate change as an existential threat. There are even more who cannot understand how anyone sees govt action as the answer. Govt can barely manage the tasks that it has. What makes you think that politicians who pass rules for us but exempt themselves hold the key?

There is nothing new about hurricanes, wildfires, hot and cold, or any other weather conditions. It has been established that dramatic change has occurred in parts of the world long before the term ‘climate change’ became a religious mantra. And it is gradually being established that alternative energy is not the answer, not unless you can convince people to lower their standard of living.

Since you offered no proof, it’s not clear what “further proof” means. Thus far, a lot of data has been generated and it has been packaged with a lot of scare stories about what might, could, possibly happen decades down the road. That’s not science; it’s religion, warning of apocalyptic consequences in the future because of acts undertaken now. If you are serious about this issue, then start with your own life and activities instead of wanting to control how everyone else goes about their business.

answered by
0 votes

The earth is 4.5 billion years old estimated. A billion is a thousand million. It is aging just like your face is, your parents face, your grandparents face………….. No one, zero persons deny the weather (short term change) and climate (long term change), 100 years or longer is changing. Many of us deny that man can control the weather and if man has influenced or can influence it burning carbon it is statistically a non event in effecting climate. That is all. Correct….clean air and water and oceans and cities and towns is nice. Open borders, trash, vilolence, murders, homelessness, disease, unparented children, welfare, taxes, inflation, runaway government, government corruption including the military we do cause and can control. Have a good evening.

answered by
DesignsShirt
Design your Own Team Apparel