Has anyone looked at the science on global warming?

[keels141]

I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.

Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.

It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...

[backinthegymbro]

I believe CO2 traps heat. So the more you get it, the more the heat is unable to escape back into space and it becomes a snowball effect.
This happened on the planet Venus.
As to how much man contributes to global warming is up for debate.

And yes the earth has gone through a lot of temperature changes before the industrialization but that's irrelevant when it comes to the science of green house effects due to the cause and effect in the future once we do reach a critical point of no return due to our own contribution.

[wodrock]

I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.

Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.

It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...

It's just lemming mentality to latch on to whatever they were purposefully fed through media and spread hysteria without understanding the complexity of the "issue". If you wonder why people are seemingly "crazy", just take a look at the IQ curve and understand that the majority of people lack critical thinking abilities just due to the intellectual level they were born with. Most people are able to understand extremely simple concepts and luckily enough that's exactly what the media is providing. Leftist ideologists abuse this phenomenon and create a narrative of a crisis situation in order to obtain rapid political power.



Realistically about 90-95% of people aren't equipped for rational thinking.

[andy0w]

You don't need much cyanide to kill yourself.

Lorries overtake each other on the motorway even with a miniscule speed difference.

It doesn't take much to make a difference and upset a balance.

And yes, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. And it is a greenhouse gas. And it will get more when it gets warner. You get a runaway effect at a certain point.
And - burning hydrocarbons like petrol or diesel increases the water vapour in the atmosphere


There is one interesting aspect though: if I use less gas for heating or transportation, and less electricity than my neighbours, then I will spend less money than them.

[steeler505]

I am by no means a climate change denier. The greenhouse effect is tried, tested and true. I just fkin wish people would stop pretending it is settled and completely understood,. because no-one is able to state to what extent humans are the cause.

If you can't tell me damn near precisely what, for example, what the temperature would be now if we had stopped released CO2 into the atmosphere in 1960, then obviously it is not 'settled'.

A science is a true and tested fact. A fact that can be applied universally, and consistent results will be found.

So until they have a formula, they can **** off.

[Sandmang27]

I absolutely hate the phase "The science is settled" science is never settled, it's just based on known information and is almost always changing.

I also hate the every 10 years the worlds going to end from the hole in the ozone, or is it the melting ice caps, or global warming, or climate change boy who cried wolf crap. They're just going to keep on saying everything and anything bad is because of climate change just so they can have little wins and act smug.

And of course I hate the attitude of typically left wing people that somehow this will all change if we let the government tax the crap out of us, because the government is known for not wasting money and actually doing what they said they'd do. Miss AOC had a 30 year plan to stop the world ending in 12 years etc.

Having said all that, I'm 100% for us to stop being dicks to the environment and trying our best to have clean water, clean air, investing in new technology that is better for the environment. Stopping future pollution and cleaning up the pollution we already created is a goal we should all work towards.

[RonaldMcflurry]

They believe that men in dresses are LITERALLY women. Of course the science is far from settled.

There is one interesting aspect though: if I use less gas for heating or transportation, and less electricity than my neighbours, then I will spend less money than them.

And it won't make the slightest bit of difference, because the real threat to the environment comes from governments/ultra rich/corporations anyways.

[FPS75]

I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.

Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.

It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...

[andy0w]

Only deniers demand science to be settled.

Like food science.
How many steaks I need to eat on Monday, and how many pushups do I need to do on Wednesday, so that I look ripped on Friday night.

[aleeboy]

Have people really looked at the size of the Earth?

I do not think humans can have as big of an impact on the Earth as they would like to believe. Hubris at its finest.

The biggest threat to humanity comes from women taking over the world. There is currently no stopping this.

We try to pull the brakes = they get mad

We do nothing = they eat their cake, get fat and get mad

What a time to be alive.

[SerpentHearted]

I'm not gonna get too far into this rabbit hole but I'm just saying... they taught us this **** was going to happen when i was in school in the late 80s / early 90s.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.

[AltarOfPlagues]

ive looked into it

[LouiePiper]

Put climate deniers in prison. Being dumb is not a good enough excuse i'm sorry. Just f*cking lock them all up.

[Frank Drebin]

Its at the point where you either accept the information that is being fed to you by the media or you are labelled as an idiot "denier". I'm not qualified to do my own research on it so I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it. I don't think its as much of a threat as its being made out to be

My opinion: A decade or 2 down the road we won't be as concerned with it as we are today. We'll be obsessing over the next "threat".

[DesiredUserphag]

No because we only care about feelings now! OK?!

Srsly, the Earth has been heating and cooling without any help from us for billions of years. Wait... I mean 6,000 years? Fuk this ghey Eart

[Frank Drebin]

I'm not gonna get too far into this rabbit hole but I'm just saying... they taught us this **** was going to happen when i was in school in the late 80s / early 90s.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.

this all sounds so scientific

[jtaylor2010]

1.) we know humans can impact the environment/climate
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could, we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-6 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact




8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion

[keels141]

I'm not gonna get too far into this rabbit hole but I'm just saying... they taught us this **** was going to happen when i was in school in the late 80s / early 90s.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.

It's more like treating the info that is fed to you with skeptical open-mindedness IMO.

Lumping 'climate deniers' in with flat-earthers, tin-foil hat wearers etc. is just avoiding debating the facts on their merits.

Appeals to authority is another cop-out - "the scientists" said it so it must be right. Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?

And also have a look at the global cooling craze from the early '70s - where the scientists right there as well?

In fact I would say these predictions have been consistently WRONG since 1988 when the IPCC was first brought in. There have been no rising sea levels and no warming - in fact, the narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" due to this. Much easier to point to every natural disaster being further evidence of climate change this way.

These greenies are similar to ISIS in the way that they take credit for every terrorist attack. Di Natale in Australia has just blamed climate change on the bushfires out here, when they were actually caused by arson attacks.

I agree we should live sustainably and think about future generations, but overpopulation is more of an issue as far as I can tell. Climate change seems more like a religion than a science.

[FPS75]

1.) we know humans can impact the environment/climate
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-7 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact




8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion

[Jacobcapra]

I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.

Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.

It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...

Yes, it is far from a settled science.


We cannot tell how much hotter the Earth is as a result of our presence with any degree of accuracy, therefore man-made climate change is a theory at best. For all we know, or even the best scientists in the field know, the Earth would be HOTTER today than it is now, if it weren't for our presence.

1.) we know humans can impact the environment/climate
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-7 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact




8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion

Yeah wow exactly this.

[Kev1972]

What many in the peanut gallery fail to understand is that these researchers have to invent crisis to get funded. So they have a monetary interest in feeding people bullchit in order to keep their jobs. If they came out and said "we have concluded humans have minimal impact on global temperatures and it follows solar cycles" they would be looking for work the next day. Obviously they are going to try to do everything in their power to keep that research and grant money flowing. Even lie.

[SerpentHearted]

It's more like treating the info that is fed to you with skeptical open-mindedness IMO.

Lumping 'climate deniers' in with flat-earthers, tin-foil hat wearers etc. is just avoiding debating the facts on their merits.

Appeals to authority is another cop-out - "the scientists" said it so it must be right. Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?

And also have a look at the global cooling craze from the early '70s - where the scientists right there as well?

In fact I would say these predictions have been consistently WRONG since 1988 when the IPCC was first brought in. There have been no rising sea levels and no warming - in fact, the narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" due to this. Much easier to point to every natural disaster being further evidence of climate change this way.

These greenies are similar to ISIS in the way that they take credit for every terrorist attack. Di Natale in Australia has just blamed climate change on the bushfires out here, when they were actually caused by arson attacks.

I agree we should live sustainably and think about future generations, but overpopulation is more of an issue as far as I can tell. Climate change seems more like a religion than a science.

i mean... the main point of my argument is that the effects of climate change are readily observable.
but feel free to ignore that.
it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to point out that something is observable and there is scientific consensus on the cause. especially when the effects now observable were predicted 30 or 40 years ago.

also re: no rising sea levels people living in pacific island nations for example the Marshall Islands might disagree with you on that.

it's not skeptical open mindedness to disregard observable phenomenon and dismiss the most qualified explanations for those phenomenon. it is simple denialism.

[Pad264]

There is a correlation between the rise of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 70-100 years and the burning of fossil fuels. There is a separate correlation between the rise of CO2 gas and the rise of global temperature. The science on those individually is very clear. The primary problem is this has turned into a political debate being fought by misinformation from big money on both sides.

My advice is this: you will likely be faced with moments in your life where you are presented with a choice that includes a greener option with a negligible economical or logistical impact. In those moments, choose the greener option as the risk-reward is in the favor of the collective mankind.

[proteinsnake]

Any issue, even climate change, is highly politicized on both ends of the political spectrum. It's without a doubt that the left is fear-mongering and exaggerating the urgency of certain issues as well as selectively choosing data that proves their agenda while ignoring the larger context and like with most issues you aren't even allowed to ask questions without the left losing their chit.

Just don't think that the little bit of research you've done is enough to debunk climate change. There are people much smarter than you who dedicate their lives to researching this subject and 99% of them agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's enough for me to believe it.

[keels141]

i mean... the main point of my argument is that the effects of climate change are readily observable.
but feel free to ignore that.
it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to point out that something is observable and there is scientific consensus on the cause. especially when the effects now observable were predicted 30 or 40 years ago.

also re: no rising sea levels people living in pacific island nations for example the Marshall Islands might disagree with you on that.

it's not skeptical open mindedness to disregard observable phenomenon and dismiss the most qualified explanations for those phenomenon. it is simple denialism.

What's observable?

I am open to be persuaded, but everything I have looked at has suggested there is no proof of it.

Also, if anyone speaks out against the 'consensus' they are punished. i.e. Peter Ridd has studied the Barrier Reef for 30+ years and was sacked for saying that coral regenerates and the Barrier Reef is not dying...so I take things with a grain of salt.

[jamalfudge]

I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.

Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.

It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...

Don't forget CO2 is a trailing indicator of temperature change. That is, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of what's going on with temps, not a cause.

Also grand solar minimum, etc.

[superiorlogic]

I support a green world simply because it is the future and being slaves to a finite resource makes us vulnerable. But global warming is mumbo jumbo

[Duckliver]

Even if the earth is fine with humanities imprint.

I grew up in the woods. I want to live in a setting surrounded by nature. And smokestacks and smog are disgusting. I don’t want all human cities to look like Beijing it’s like fukking Midgard from FF7.

I just want to keep my beautiful planet. Srs. And I want less people on this planet. It’s for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.

[MiamiLife305]

There is a correlation between the rise of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 70-100 years and the burning of fossil fuels. There is a separate correlation between the rise of CO2 gas and the rise of global temperature. The science on those individually is very clear. The primary problem is this has turned into a political debate being fought by misinformation from big money on both sides.

My advice is this: you will likely be faced with moments in your life where you are presented with a choice that includes a greener option with a negligible economical or logistical impact. In those moments, choose the greener option as the risk-reward is in the favor of the collective mankind.

This is well said

Simple and to the point

[jtaylor2010]

Any issue, even climate change, is highly politicized on both ends of the political spectrum. It's without a doubt that the left is fear-mongering and exaggerating the urgency of certain issues as well as selectively choosing data that proves their agenda while ignoring the larger context and like with most issues you aren't even allowed to ask questions without the left losing their chit.

Just don't think that the little bit of research you've done is enough to debunk climate change. There are people much smarter than you who dedicate their lives to researching this subject and 99% of them agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's enough for me to believe it.

See post 17. So most scientists agree with point number 1. That still leaves us with questions 2-7 to answer.