• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Can someone be a climate change denier but still truly believe in science?

Lensman

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'm interested in the subset of people who are climate change deniers but still believe in science and the scientific method.

What's the thinking? It seems hard to reconcile.

OTOH, I do think it's possible to hold the opinion that "we" shouldn't be the first to act on it and that other countries should bear more of the burden in compensating. But that's different. I'm more interested in the set of people who truly believe that the climate is not changing or if it is, it isn't due to the rise in global CO2 levels or other greenhouse gases - and further, the subset of those who consider themselves to otherwise be believers in science and scientific consensus.

I'd be similarly interested in hearing about anti-vaxxers who believe in science and the scientific method.
 

DoubleJ21

Premium Member
I'm interested in the subset of people who are climate change deniers but still believe in science and the scientific method.

What's the thinking? It seems hard to reconcile.

OTOH, I do think it's possible to hold the opinion that "we" shouldn't be the first to act on it and that other countries should bear more of the burden in compensating. But that's different. I'm more interested in the set of people who truly believe that the climate is not changing or if it is, it isn't due to the rise in global CO2 levels or other greenhouse gases - and further, the subset of those who consider themselves to otherwise be believers in science and scientific consensus.

I'd be similarly interested in hearing about anti-vaxxers who believe in science and the scientific method.
"‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity. Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.”

Those that claim to "believe" in science are themselves falsely asserting a great deal of alarmism that is completely unjustified by the studied science. The world isn't going to be faced with some catastrophe. At most, there will be a statistically detectable increase in a few undesirable outcomes. The idea that we are faced with global catastrophe that will result in millions of lost lives is absolute nonsense being parroted by David Wallace-Wells (the author of the only book AOC has ever read on climate change). In fact, DWW was roundly criticized in the scientific community for his mischaracterization of the science.

Needless to say, not all science is equally credible. I will summarize my confidence in climate science with this figure captured from the IPCC AR5 report. In particular, I note the tail end and the continued lack of knowledge surrounding it.
364770

I'll give you another. The lack of cooling in the stratosphere post-1995ish is quite something as well. This trend line should really be broken up.
364774

The idea that climate science is "settled" is baloney. Scientists can't even determine the sign, let alone the magnitude, of the radiative forcing of aerosols, and the science is settled? Please.

Also, the idea that the world is going to reach "net zero" CO2 emissions by 2050, even 2100, is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. Japan, an extremely highly developed country, is opening new coal plants every year. Are we going to starve Africa of the only possibility they have of obtaining widespread electricity (that will save hundreds of millions of lives)?

So the question must be asked, what on Earth can the United States do that would change the course of global CO2 emissions? Nothing. Cutting back on our emissions without the rest of the world doing so is a nonstarter.
 
Last edited:

seascape

Well-Known Member
Global warming is a fact. What is not a fact is why? In the 1400s France was a net importer of English wine. It was then the mini ice age that caused the grapes to die in Northern Europe and bring about the beer and hard liquor industries.

Now, do I believe man has played a role in the temperature changes? Yes, but not the majority of it because the temperature is still cooler than than when England made the worlds best wine. Should we continue to cut down on pollution? Of course but the problem is not a critical as some claim. Remember. Al Gore claimed in 2000 that if extreme measures were not taken then it would be too late in 10 years. It is now 20 years later and they say we still have another 10 to 12 years before it's too late. The best thing for everyone to understand is that with more economic growth more people become interested in the environment. Poor people can't care about the environment because the only can concern themselves with survival. It will be the private sector that will solve this problem not the government.
 
Top Bottom