Can you tell me how climate change is a theory? There are tons of facts pointing to it such as below.
Do you believe in climate change/global warming?
- Thread starter nintendofan85
- Start date
Can you tell me how climate change is a theory? There are tons of facts pointing to it such as below.
-Apples-
Apple Imperialist
Can you tell me how climate change is a theory? There are tons of facts pointing to it such as below.
If there’s a question I’m not comfortable answering, I reserve the right not to answer it.
Anyway, I have a new opinion on the issue, because of what was going on this year. I’m glad that people still care for the issue. In years past, I read climate news as early as spring, but this year, I have not read a single article on climate change until July. The two recent reports on it - Siberia reaching 100°F and ice-free summers possibly happening in 2034, have been buried by several news reports on two other issues happening this year. While one of them may be serious and must be dealt with, global warming should also be dealt with.
I was kinda thinking that people would look for alternatives to fighting it, like artificial photosynthesis or carbon mining from the atmosphere, so we’re not just reducing it, but also taking it away. Hopefully, if this gets popular, an ice-free Arctic summer would never happen (and if carbon dioxide levels are much lower than ever, but the earth is still heating up, then I don’t know what to do there).
SolaireOfAstora
After Mon and Tues, even the calendar says WTF
I don't need to believe it, it's proven...what is there to believe? It's not a matter of "belief" you "believe" in something that may or may not be true: God(s), ghosts, karma, etc. Things that can't be proven nor disproven.
Climate change and human impact on the environment has been proven and tracked and predicted for DECADES. If you choose ignorance for some reason, you're a part of the problem and I have no qualms about people calling you what you are: an ignorant moron. Willfully turning a blind eye to the harm and refuting the constant proof for any reason makes a person a moron, and I have every right to call them one.
I will always try to educate them first of course, but if they don't take it...they are stupid and I have every right to call them out on it.
I'm nice until your ignorance causes harm, which active denial of scientific evidence denoting our earth's destruction, definitely does.
Climate change and human impact on the environment has been proven and tracked and predicted for DECADES. If you choose ignorance for some reason, you're a part of the problem and I have no qualms about people calling you what you are: an ignorant moron. Willfully turning a blind eye to the harm and refuting the constant proof for any reason makes a person a moron, and I have every right to call them one.
I will always try to educate them first of course, but if they don't take it...they are stupid and I have every right to call them out on it.
I'm nice until your ignorance causes harm, which active denial of scientific evidence denoting our earth's destruction, definitely does.
Post automatically merged:
No Global warming is a fact. Our atmosphere is getting warmer lol what even
It's really sad that the ignorance from years ago is harming us so much these days. People will genuinely post articles with Breitbart sources as a way to counter scientific reports just because they want to "gotcha!" a serious topic that has already killed people because of irregular heat.
Like this is literally our life and people will sit on their computer advocating against common sense and fact-checking.
Like this is literally our life and people will sit on their computer advocating against common sense and fact-checking.
Yes. There was evidence enough decades ago, but if you're still denying it now you must be blind. The strength of storms, amount of rain in quick burst and hot days in summer where I live compared to when I was growing up is staggering, let alone what's happening in other places in the world. Please vote for parties in your country/area who want to do real things to counteract it.
mayortiffany
Senior Member
I want to leave a note of caution from a former science teacher of mine. I'll note that our teacher was the head of our Environment Club, and helped with student initiatives like improving recycling on campus and creating a vegetable garden. He biked to school every day and organized the annual bike to school day and the corresponding activities. Clearly a guy who believes in climate change and believes in helping the environment!
He told us that as a scientist, as someone who is concerned for the environment, he is concerned that scientists who speak out with any evidence that could be remotely construed as being against climate change often get pushback from other scientists. For example, they face trouble getting grants for their research because research into climate change's harms is politically popular, and governments/corporations don't want to risk being seen as being anti-climate change. Who wants to fund the scientist who says that they would like to see if climate change is really going to be as dangerous as estimates predict? He told us that even though the evidence certainly suggests that climate change is absolutely real, we should be careful when we engage with scientific evidence.
We should not be dismissive of genuine scientific evidence that perhaps goes against our pre-conceived beliefs and notions, that goes against what is seen as popular, and should always be critical of the science that we see. So long as the work a scientist is conducting is legitimate, our teacher saw no problem in that work being conducted, and said that for quality scientific research to be conducted into the field of climate change, we have to be ready to engage with it from all angles. That means that if there is a strong piece of evidence out there that climate change is perhaps less severe than we think, we should be willing to engage with it. If there is a weak piece of evidence proving that climate change is worsening, we should be critical of it even if aligns with our pre-conceived notions.
I think that moment will always stick with me because it was totally not we were expecting him to say, as someone who we knew was a fierce advocate of environmentalism. But he was also a science teacher who really cared for his students and about giving them a good education.
He told us that as a scientist, as someone who is concerned for the environment, he is concerned that scientists who speak out with any evidence that could be remotely construed as being against climate change often get pushback from other scientists. For example, they face trouble getting grants for their research because research into climate change's harms is politically popular, and governments/corporations don't want to risk being seen as being anti-climate change. Who wants to fund the scientist who says that they would like to see if climate change is really going to be as dangerous as estimates predict? He told us that even though the evidence certainly suggests that climate change is absolutely real, we should be careful when we engage with scientific evidence.
We should not be dismissive of genuine scientific evidence that perhaps goes against our pre-conceived beliefs and notions, that goes against what is seen as popular, and should always be critical of the science that we see. So long as the work a scientist is conducting is legitimate, our teacher saw no problem in that work being conducted, and said that for quality scientific research to be conducted into the field of climate change, we have to be ready to engage with it from all angles. That means that if there is a strong piece of evidence out there that climate change is perhaps less severe than we think, we should be willing to engage with it. If there is a weak piece of evidence proving that climate change is worsening, we should be critical of it even if aligns with our pre-conceived notions.
I think that moment will always stick with me because it was totally not we were expecting him to say, as someone who we knew was a fierce advocate of environmentalism. But he was also a science teacher who really cared for his students and about giving them a good education.
Last edited:
It is no secret that the air is very polluted. Every day, a huge number of people die because of this. And it's not just Africa. Each state has a number of factories that pollute the atmosphere. But for me it remains a secret why the construction of new factories continues when the level of air pollution is very high? Apparently, money is much more important for people than the well-being of the whole planet. Only thanks to small companies like carbonclick I do not lose hope for a bright future. They really care about the state of our planet and they are trying to somehow help her. The projects that they implement every day greatly help the environment. Why don't large organizations want to take an example from them? Is money more important than health ??
BlueOceana
Let us ride the waves!
I do, it is a serious problem that humans are causing. All the factories and fossil fuel are a factor. One example is that winters are getting warmer with less snow, when my parents were little they talk about how it was colder and that is snowed more often and there was more of it.
SaltedKaramel
Bread is good
Seems harsh but voting no to this answer is basically the same as watching a murder happen right in front of you, but and then later telling the authorities that you don't know who the killer is. Science is never and will never be political. It's all about facts, gathering information that leads you to the most correct answer. I hate how so many topics like wearing masks, covid, and this very topic, climate change, has turned into something political.
Man I hate politics with the very fiber of my being
Man I hate politics with the very fiber of my being
fluttershy300
૮꒰ ˶• ༝ •˶꒱ა ♡
Yes I do, part of the reason why I don’t plan on bringing more kids into this world..
ReanimatedSorceress
Local Monstergirl
Not believing in climate change would be like having cancer but deciding it isn't a problem because you don't understand all of the science behind it
SolaireOfAstora
After Mon and Tues, even the calendar says WTF
To be fair, we're pretty much ignoring the problem anyway -- even if it's exaggerated. At this point, saying "it might not be as fast as we thought but it's still dangerous" is just going to cause extensive damage. Those in denial will use it as more "proof" and companies will be like "okay so we can produce 59684096 tonnes of smog per day now cool"
It's also not the fault of scientists; science became political and it's severely damaging to the overall rhetoric of a country's inhabitants.
mayortiffany
Senior Member
It's one thing to agree on that climate change exists, it's another to agree on how best to actually address the problem. If it is the case that "climate change might not be as fast as we thought but it's still dangerous", knowing that is important to discuss what policies might be effective because we have a better idea of what kind of time frame we're dealing with. IMO, it's not dangerous to have an idea of what we're up against when it comes to climate change.
I mean, in a way, science has always been political. We can think about how Galileo's discovery that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around was deeply controversial within the Catholic Church - heliocentric ideas were banned, and Galileo suffered personal consequences.
In addition to the problem of climate change deniers, figuring out what to do about climate change is absolutely a political question. Ultimately, whatever answer that's chosen is going to affect people in some way or another. Companies producing smog for example, might be really bad for the environment, but it can also be beneficial for local jobs (and everyone who relies on those jobs for a living) and the local economy.
SolaireOfAstora
After Mon and Tues, even the calendar says WTF
Those are definitely valid points. What I'm trying to say is, even with the dangers being exaggerated (i.e "we're going to end the Earth in 10 years!" this is just an even more exaggerated example, ofc) it's not being taken very seriously by people who could be doing more (think Jeff Bezos). I'm afraid that if we say it's less of an issue, people are going to see that as a reason to be more reckless -- which could ultimate lead to it speeding up to some degree.
"Science" predating Catholicism and the Holy Roman Empire was a huge deal and it was highly respected. (Unless you were a woman or Socrates.). I suppose you could definitely say it was still political as whomever was more popular was generally considered to be correct. For example, for early ideas of atoms and chemistry, Aristotle and Democritus had differing theories but everyone just went with Aristotle because they liked him better, despite Democritus having a more accurate theory. To be fair, this was Ancient Greece and they had no way to fact check.
And finally, I wholeheartedly agree but I am speaking (currently) purely from an environmental standpoint.
I hope I'm at least making some sense; I have issues trying to express myself
mayortiffany
Senior Member
I totally understand where you coming from, no worries! It makes a lot of sense to me. It's definitely true that if reports do come out that climate change's dangers are perhaps a bit exaggerated, some people might take that as a reason to be more reckless now. I've also heard some people argue that if we say that climate change's dangers are very bad (basically exaggerate everything), people might not care either. So... in any situation, people might not care.
I think that it's also important to remember that while we can absolutely ask people in power and people with privilege like Jeff Bezos to put more of their money towards climate change, it's still their money. People have different priorities for how they want to spend their money (whether we agree with those priorities or not). They have the ability to choose what to do, or what not to do with it. We might not agree, but I don't know if anyone can 'demand' someone else spend their own money in the way that they like. Sure, Bezos could probably do more with his money if he wants, but I think the same can be said about everyone. We all have the capacity to help support the fight against climate change, whether it's through monetary donations or voting in politicians who care about that fight!
This is something that kind of troubles me from an environmentalist standpoint. I've seen some people accuse people of asking about a policy's impacts on the economy or on lives or whatever as being selfish climate-change deniers. Which... I guess they very well could be? But sometimes, I feel like some people believe that if you believe in climate change, you have to support x/y/z policies, which I feel detracts from the overall cause.
Every summer here gets hotter and hotter, the cold takes longer to get here, and it doesn't get as cold as it used to when I was a kid. The cold leaves quicker and the hot arrives earlier each and every year.
***l yeah it's real.
***l yeah it's real.
Similar threads
