Climate Change Mega Thread

[CapitalB]

We've got a lot of denires of human accelerated climate change here who are always asking for the proof. I present to you the array of proof*;
* - All 'proof' listed below has been traced to primary sources. Each article lists its sources, each study is peer reviewed, and in some cases even the reviews have been reviewed.

Edit: Moved the following section for easier reading.

The Debunker debunking section - If you (edited out of relevance) skipped past the previous articles and have your choicest climate denial arguments in hand maybe try these articles out first, they deal with some common arguments against climate change.

This study tries to recreate the few studies that disagree with the general climate change consensus. Finds they all have flaws in how they were designed or executed and cannot be replicated with the same results. - Basically they failed at the peer review part of becoming a legitimate scientific study. Here's an article explaining the study if you want an easier breakdown than the study abstract.

This article on Bloomberg breaks down a study that looks into the large percentage of papers that express no position on climate change. - They contact a number of the authors of no position papers and ask them for clarity, they also cite a few other studies that look only at the views of active climate scientists and found a 90-100% consensus.

This is an article on the National Review that attempts to throw doubt on climate science in general - It has no sources, cites people who aren't scientists and was written by a political advisor rather than a journalist or a scientist.

Edit: This was the top of the post before I moved the debunker debunking station upward for clarity.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming - We'll start off with this classic from Nasa. Contains a statement from 18 American Scientific Societies, is backed by 200 worldwide scientific organizations, and has a list of primary sources at the bottom.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - This is an abstract study that reviews 11,944 separate peer reviewed scientific studies on climate change and finds a 97% consensus.
This article by the guardian breaks down this abstract and goes over what all that means and what exactly a 97% consensus means in real world terms.

This article breaks down two (peer reviewed) studies that it claims undermine climate denial arguements. - The first study is all about how carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere effect the temperature. The second finds evidence of accelerated warming in satellite data.

This fun article looks into various details of the most cited papers in climate science. - Really digs into which ones climate scientists think are the most impactful and has graphs showing, general data, countries studies are coming from, prolific authors, etc. All with links to the (peer reviewed) studies throughout the article.

This is a nice study on "Expert credibility in climate change" - Tries to tackle the american public's distrust of climate scientists with science. The summary has the best description;

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Omnitheo]

Very nice and comprehensive.

A shame that there are so many here who are opposed to science that doesn’t match their political ideology.

[CapitalB]

Very nice and good comprehensive.

A shame that there are so many here who are opposed to science that doesn’t match their political ideology.

I'll try to hold out optimism for them actually clicking on some of the links.

The pessimist in side me though... pretty sure a lot of people are going to immediately shut their brains... much better to listen to politicians with no ulterior motives on the subject.

[The Green Barbarian]

A shame that there are so many here who are opposed to science that doesn’t match their political ideology.

I agree 100%. Those that cling to communist principles seem to never want to accept science and realize that the debate is far from settled regarding mankind's effect on the environment and climate. The science isn't settled, as has been proven by the continual stream of bad information and junk science resulting in completely inaccurate forecasts. If it wasn't for the fact that the "cure" to the manmade climate change hypothesis so interacts with communist philosophy (massive wealth redistribution and global poverty) the lunatic fringe would have abandoned this cause a long time ago.

[averagejoe]

A shame that there are so many here who are opposed to science that doesn’t match their political ideology.

I agree 100%. Those that cling to communist principles seem to never want to accept science and realize that the debate is far from settled regarding mankind's effect on the environment and climate. The science isn't settled, as has been proven by the continual stream of bad information and junk science resulting in completely inaccurate forecasts. If it wasn't for the fact that the "cure" to the manmade climate change hypothesis so interacts with communist philosophy (massive wealth redistribution and global poverty) the lunatic fringe would have abandoned this cause a long time ago.

Exactly what Climate Change is all about.....wealth distribution.

[rustled]

Very nice and good comprehensive.

A shame that there are so many here who are opposed to science that doesn’t match their political ideology.

I'll try to hold out optimism for them actually clicking on some of the links.

The pessimist in side me though... pretty sure a lot of people are going to immediately shut their brains... much better to listen to politicians with no ulterior motives on the subject.

No perception bias/confirmation bias here, folks. Why not throw in a healthy dose of Bill Nye for good measure?

If you truly wanted a discussion, it's unlikely you would have started off being so condescending. Just sayin'.

There's not a single thing to post here we haven't all seen before. What's more, two of the people who like your thread have consistently refused to acknowledge any of the harm done in the name of stopping ...what are we calling it now? Oh, yes, Accelerated Climate Change.

And that will always, for me, be the elephant in the room.

So no, I won't be going into it all over again, because quite frankly people who are committed to fighting ACC seem utterly unable to comprehend the consequences of anything related to fighting ACC. It disgusts me that anyone can willfully overlook and downplay the unnecessary pain and suffering of others so they can comfortably continue to champion something they do not properly understand, on social media. "We don't really understand it but it's settled science and we must do it for the greater good" is just as ignorant an excuse as "we don't really understand it but the pope says we must do it for the greater good". It's an inexcusable and disgusting abdication of personal responsibility for supporting a movement that hurts both people and the environment.

So. that's the Coles Notes version of every discussion I've ever had with the "non-deniers" on this forum, neatly encapsulated just for you CapitalB. It's already obvious this thread will be no different, so:

Peace out.

[Omnitheo]

Blah blah blah
Same BS as always. Not wanting to accept responsibility. Passing the buck onto our children. Imagining that combatting climate change will ruin our way of life, while ignoring the effects it will have on our future.

Just a bunch of shortsighted selfish people that have bought into the lies and misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industries.

There is no real conversation to have here, because none of you are willing to accept reality, nor are you able to comprehend the results of actual science

What's more, two of the people who like your thread have consistently refused to acknowledge any of the harm done in the name of stopping ...what are we calling it now? Oh, yes, Accelerated Climate Change.

What a load of crap. Sorry but fighting climate change isn’t the thing responsible for melting sea ice, half the species on the planet going extinct, global droughts displacing millions of people, or lost economy from it being too hot for planes to take off.

Your argument would be like never throwing out garbage building up in your house because of the “harm” of having to spend your time and money buying garbage bags and cleaning up after yourself.

[rustled]

^^So you see, CapitalB, this is precisely how it is: Deflection shields at full, repeat alarmist messaging to obliterate pesky talk of consequences and personal responsibility.

And this is why repeating the same discussion in yet another thread will not change a single thing.

[Omnitheo]

What deflection? CapitalB posted a comprehensive list of studies which you ignored outright, instead opting to raise your deflection shields to full and go on alarmist tangents about some hypothetical harm done by taking a shred of responsibility for our actions.

So easy for you to accuse others of something without realizing that you are doing that very thing.

But whatever, you can’t acknowledge the science and realities, and I can’t blame you for not wanting to continue fighting a losing battle, so feel free to peace out.

[CapitalB]

Honestly it just looks like you guys are making excuses to discount evidence.

Peer reviewed scientific studies are really something you can't argue against. You keep trying to but you don't have anything backing up any of your claims. No studies that hold water, no real scientific backing, nothing. Your basically conspiracy theorists railing against a mountain of facts and evidence, coming in from literally thousands of independent experts in the fields in question. Yet you CHOOSE to believe information that is patently objectively undisputedly false.

Also you use some slight condescension as a reason to discount all the evidence? Double standards much you guys, you included Rustled, constantly name call people that see climate change denial for what it is, deliberate willful ignorance. The only difference is the people you guys name call don't cry about it after.

PS sorry mods I know thats skirting the rules, I feel like its all on topic but I felt obligated to respond to specific call outs.

[rustled]

What deflection? CapitalB posted a comprehensive list of studies which you ignored outright, instead opting to raise your deflection shields to full and go on alarmist tangents about some hypothetical harm done by taking a shred of responsibility for our actions.

So easy for you to accuse others of something without realizing that you are doing that very thing.

But whatever, you can’t acknowledge the science and realities, and I can’t blame you for not wanting to continue fighting a losing battle, so feel free to peace out.

I read several of the links, including the one he (she?) dismissed (with enough impudence to do Orwell proud):

This is an article on the National Review that attempts to throw doubt on climate science in general - It has no sources, cites people who aren't scientists and was written by a political advisor rather than a journalist or a scientist.

For you, this is about sticking to a side.

So for every person who struggled to eat and to feed their family because policy turned their food into ethanol, for every piece of equipment that was scrapped and replaced before its time because of what that ethanol did to its fuel line, for every person who shivers in the cold in a first world country rife with natural resources because people insisted we jack up electrical prices, for every tree in the Carolinas that was turned to pellets and shipped to be burned in the UK, for every acre of farm or forest that was destroyed for a wind farm, there's always the comfort for you that people like me are only "Passing the buck onto our children. Imagining that combatting climate change will ruin our way of life, while ignoring the effects it will have on our future."

"We don't really understand it but it's settled science and we must do it for the greater good" is just as ignorant an excuse as "we don't really understand it but the pope says we must do it for the greater good". It's an inexcusable and disgusting abdication of personal responsibility for supporting a movement that hurts both people and the environment.

But you're both unwilling and unable to deal with the damage already done and being done right now, and so you will always hide behind an accusation: "But whatever, you can’t acknowledge the science and realities..."

Yes, I absolutely know I'm fighting a losing battle.

[The Green Barbarian]

Honestly it just looks like you guys are making excuses to discount evidence.

what evidence???

[The Green Barbarian]

What deflection? CapitalB posted a comprehensive list of studies .

But those "studies" are just crap. The first one listed the debunked "97%' nonsense. Why post something that isn't true, and then try and claim that what you are posting has any relevance? Man-made climate change is an interesting hypothesis, that one day, with proper study, prove to have some merit. But it's not proven, and is a long way from ever being a real thing. In the interim, making insanely stupid decisions to waste trillions of dollars on something that isn't proven, is just a bad idea.

[rustled]

Honestly it just looks like you guys are making excuses to discount evidence.

Peer reviewed scientific studies are really something you can't argue against. You keep trying to but you don't have anything backing up any of your claims. No studies that hold water, no real scientific backing, nothing. Your basically conspiracy theorists railing against a mountain of facts and evidence, coming in from literally thousands of independent experts in the fields in question. Yet you CHOOSE to believe information that is patently objectively undisputedly false.

Also you use some slight condescension as a reason to discount all the evidence? Double standards much you guys, you included Rustled, constantly name call people that see climate change denial for what it is, deliberate willful ignorance. The only difference is the people you guys name call don't cry about it after.

PS sorry mods I know thats skirting the rules, I feel like its all on topic but I felt obligated to respond to specific call outs.

Ha.

Nowhere here am I arguing against peer-reviewed science.

Nowhere here am I making claims about climate change.

You want proof about ethanol? Look to Oxfam and the IPCC.

I'm asking for accountability for harm already done, and you come back to me with more accusations of denial and willful ignorance? Double standards indeed. As to name calling: is "non-denier" name calling? Seriously?

Reread the piece you linked to and dismissed above. It talks about the problem of extremes. It talks about the mistakes we make when we take extremist positions and entrench ourselves, instead of seeking the best way forward. If you still can't see what he's saying, you might want to ask yourself why that is.

Or not. Wallow in it. Orwell would be proud.

[Omnitheo]

and you are proposing extreme inaction. You’ve entrenched yourself in this position that anything we do to take responsibility and mitigate the damage we are causing is automatically more harmful than following the status quo into ruin.

You are still unable to see the forest for the trees.
You fixate on any tiny speed bump or hurdle and act like it’s an excuse to dismiss the entire issue.