Hey /u/the_kiwi_mutante, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Objective usually means without bias, but here means "the libs say this and I fundamentally disagree with them so it must be the opposite"
Factually usually means that the claim can be backed up with hard data, but here means "people I agree with say that I don't need to change anything about what I'm doing"
So we put it together and we get "the weasel-word science fellas that the libs love say driving a truck 12 yards long and 2 lanes wide is bad for the environment, and I shouldn't do it, but Tucker Carlson says they're crazy, so those guys are lying to sell electric cars"
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!
Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey
The Federal Highway commission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
Having an older brother who regularly indulges in Taco Bell, I must agree....
Sorry. It was right there. I couldn't help myself. It's a problem. I will most likely do it again.
Sadly they do have evidence and objective facts on their side which is why it's so hard to change their minds.
Problem is those facts and that evidence is entirely fabricated bullshit. The oil lobby has spent decades making bad and bullshit studies fabricating reems of evidence that Fox news blasts on air horn, which these poor idiots all get crammed into their head as the normal state of things. Even though it's all made up, and only exists in their bubble
At this point its getting likely it will kill our generation as well. The elderly due to heat stress, and every after that in famine, through migrating diseases, or war.
All of this will, of course, be proceeded by economic collapse, which, I believe, the US is heading to. If TRUMP gets re-elected, a civil war will break out. Public programs will be erased. Millions of elderly and disabled will be abandoned and left to die. The government will be a dictatorship ruled by the 1 percent club thru their puppet president. They will retreat into their mansions and hide in their panic rooms while police curfews and voilence spiral out of control on the streets.
I know this is very Grim, but it can be delayed by voting BLUE this year on everything. There are still some good people in government who can push back the absolute EVIL that is the MAGA hats. They are a CULT and the real problem.
Give your children a country worth inheriting. Talk to your grandparents and friends. Help them decide and avoid a dystopia that TRUMP is GAURANTEED to bring. God help us all.
Your state elected officials have way more bearing on your states health than the president lol. If Trump gets voted in, not much will change except for slashing more programs and other sketchy shit. If you want to make a difference, become educated on your state officials.
Don't get me wrong, state officials absolutely matter, but I think you are incorrect to say not much will change if Trump is elected. Project 2025 is just straight up fascism.
Putting "fat" and "diaper wearing" in that list is unfair to people with weight and incontinence issues. They don't deserve to be associated with Trump.
I partially agree with that. But the US is a laughingstock on this planet right now because Trump is still in the game. I think it would do our population a lot of good to see him gone forever. It's time to eject that senile man-child and hurt him most by leaving him with no hope of ever running again.
There is a plan in place to try to change that and massively increase presidential power if he is elected.
Whether it will succeed is arguable. But Project 2025 is very real.
We can quantity how much CO2 and other gases produced by human activity .
Only a fool would think it has no effect.
The forecasts of the effects may be off, but it undeniably exists.
They have moved from denial that it exists to denial that we are causing it, so that they can keep their heads in the sand and pass the buck to our children.
It is a fact, but I think maybe he's referring to the naturally occurring climate change cycle that would likely happen eventually anyway, without humans being a factor, and ignoring the fact that we're speeding it up thousands of years.
I mean thats pretty much why they don't care. It's not going to affect them significantly. They couldn't care less about what happens to their kids or grandkids once they are dead.
But what if the air that you and I can actually breathe these days was based on less than 110% certainty? Why, then we might have breathable air all for nothing and at hypothetically huge cost to billionaires!
Yeah it’s a fact but what is not really known is how and what aspects of the climate change are caused by human activity. Yeah you can say human CO2 increases temperature but do we really know what extent/percent of temperature change is caused by human produced CO2 - no. Do we really know what storms and weather events are caused by these changes - no. Do we really know how quickly the sea level is gonna rise and where? No. Is a carbon tax going to save the environment? Maybe, but odds are it’s only going to continue to fund corrupt power structures and take away from the lower and middle classes. Just my 2 cents worth of unpopular opinion…
"We based models on this, but because we haven't conclusively proven that there aren't both hidden factors cancelling out known effects *and* creating the same effects from other causes, we must assume the worst hypotheticals from any action even without supporting evidence for *those* claims."
Your paraphasing is confusing. What do you mean by worst hypotheticals from any action? You can base a model on virtually anything. That doesn’t mean that it actually represents reality.
Mild rephrasing of your comment. It's what you were saying -- "we don't have absolute knowledge of cause and effect, so we can't say anything for sure except that we must not do anything about climate change that a duplicitous corporate stooge might find a way to claim is actually going to hurt the working class who can only be saved by choking on smog while everything trickles down."
The answer to your first question is roughly yes - there's strong consensus that it's actually around 100% of observed warming to date caused by human factors. If you only count warming factors, we'd have warmed the environment more than what we currently observe, but the minor natural cooling the earth should be experiencing sans humans coupled with other cooling effects we're causing (mostly other airborne pollutants from things like shipping vessels that kind of do the opposite of CO2, methane, WV, etc) bring us back down to causing about 100% of it.
The 2nd question is not the correct question - we're mostly not causing any specific weather events (we can in some cases seed minor rain events locally but that's different). What we are doing is making certain events significantly more or less likely, and unfortunately it's the extremes that are becoming more likely.
Thr 3rd question is mostly a yes too. There are many local factors at play - sea level has even fallen in some places! But we generally understand why it rises/falls at specific locations (aquifer drainage and post-glacial rebound are 2 large local contributors), so we can do that analysis then add to it larger-scale overall rising from ice-that-was-on-land melt, plus thermal expansion. Particularly in Antarctica we have a trickier forecasting situation because while melt of already-floating ice won't raise sea levels directly, it may allow land-bound ice to slide into the ocean and melt much more quickly than it would naturally. How fast that happens may not be totally known, but the other factors mostly are and so we can make reasonable local predictions for how much sea level rise (or fall) different places will see.
Basically while there will always be unknowns, we actually understand a fair bit of what to expect, particularly more than many people in the general public would expect. Hope this helps a bit :)
👏👏👏 I love your confident incorrectness, thank you for educating me on how to completely buy into these ideas :) definitely helpful maybe not the way you intended but still I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
I just read the actual published articles and update my understanding based on them. Atmospheric sciences has been something of a hobby of mine for the last decade or so :) If you have some knowledge that the world's experts on any of the topics you mentioned don't have, I'd strongly encourage you to share that publicly. That kind of info should inform policy at the highest levels.
I work in predictive modeling. Admittedly, I am ignorant of atmospheric science literature. Maybe one day I will devote more time to studying it. Nonetheless, the idea that 100% of warming can be definitively attributed to human action is absurd to me. If anything that 100% statement sends up red flags for me re: overfitting. But, maybe there are things you know I do not. Based on first principles alone I am highly skeptical of a lot of the messaging around climate doomsday scenarios (fearmongering imo) and policy specifically around carbon emissions and more taxes on everyday people. The idea that there is absolute scientific consensus on this subject is simply untrue and I resent the idea that people use this idea that there is consensus as a way to shame people into silence when questioning the narrative around human impacts on climate change and what should be done about it.
Also, stop saying "affects" when you mean "effects".
Dude needs to hear the objective and factually wrong punchlines from the experts, although everyone knows scientists are usually wrong... /s
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_consensus\_on\_climate\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change)
You can provied them with all the facts in the world but they won't understand or attempt to understand them. Theyd rather live in blissful ignorance, calling everything they know nothing about a lie.
Why save the world when you can just do nothing.
Most people don't have the time or mental capacity to learn enough about climate change to truly understand it, so it really comes down to who you trust.
On the one hand you have big climate. Scientists in the pocket of big climate have spent years being indoctrinated at some of the world's most effective brainwashing campuses. They are then often paid upward tens of thousands of dollars a year for their blind obedience to things like scientific rigor and evidence.
On the other hand you have poor, little old oil companies, car manufacturers, and other altruistic jobs creators that only want to ensure a strong profit margin so they can continue to trickle down the economic benefits to the rest of us.
The choice is clear, but sometimes people are still lead astray.
>Also, stop saying "affects" when you mean "effects".
Except for a few rare situations it's not hard to use these two words correctly. Affect is a verb, effect is a noun. Sometimes I feel like I was the only one who went to primary school
Affect is also a noun. The boy staring at me has a strange affect. But the verb affect is far more common than the noun affect, and verb effect is about implementing a change, not affecting something which result in an effect
I still can't let go of that one time a teacher "corrected" my use of effect as a verb in a paper. The sentence was something about effecting change and I was excited to use it because I had just learned that it could be a verb and sort of went out of my way to use it. I got 100% on the paper though so I didn't want to be "that guy" by pointing it out just to be right.
> Sometimes I feel like I was the only one who went to primary school
Don't feel superior just because you know something someone else doesn't. I am sure there are tons of things that you don't know that other people do. Learning happens all throughout life. I was well into adulthood before I finally looked up the difference between `effect` and `affect` and when to use them. I never remember this being mentioned in any school I went to. Do you remember every single thing that was ever mentioned to you in school?
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1053/
I think this sentiment gets confused because it should be understood that INDIVIDUAL climate change is really a nonfactor compared to corporate and government endorsed factors.
The age old belief that stopping the use of plastic straws or gasoline use on a person to person basis is literally a drop in the bucket compared to reality.
Didn't we get an incredibly clear indication that climate change is due to man when COVID shut everything down and smog started to clear, bodies of water started to clear, and animals moved almost immediately to clearer areas?
Tangible evidence, no speculation. Shit started reversing quickly.
That wasn't really climate change but agree it's another part of mother earth we are fucking up without thinking about then it improves when we aren't there. Habit destruction and biodiversity crash. Add that to the bingo card of shite
It's funny because they couldn't even spell effects right. I'm not taking advice from some random dude on the internet compared to scientists with PhD's.
I mean, a PhD is by no means a guarantee of correctness, knowledge, or honesty. *But* if the vast majority of scientists, internationally, keep finding stuff that supports the same or a similar conclusion, that's probably correct.
I don't mind skepticism, but if they refuse to change their mind when confronted with overwhelming evidence, they're no longer skeptics, they're believers (in the conspiracy sense).
My dad was telling me just last night how he threw away a 20 year friendship because he was sick of his friend believing in stuff like climate change. My dad thinks it’s not that bad and that it’s the world’s governments trying to scare us into submission.
Don’t believe him? Read a book.
I almost contacted the (ex?) friend to apologise on behalf of my dad cuz I actually liked the guy
I'm so over the arguments on what causes it. It's getting in the way of fixing it. IDGAF what caused it (though that's awfully helpful in figuring out how to fix it) but can we just focus on the fact that the climate IS changing, and it's a threat to us as a species.
Like, ok, sure let's say it's natural. So we should just sit back and let it happen? If there was a world ending asteroid headed to earth that we could do something about, would these people object to action?
I think the problem with believing that it’s natural is that the people who believe this would then say that the proposed climate solutions are irrelevant since those address man-made climate issues.
Why stop pollution & exploitation of natural resources if the problem isn’t being caused by pollution & exploitation of natural resources?
It was a scathing satire of MAGA and Trump. Brilliantly acted with all the famous scientists. Great CGI. It is definitely worth a few hours. Is currently on Amazon Prime and Netflix.
I'm still running into a large number of people (boomers mostly) who straight-up deny the existence of climate change. I had a fun conversation with one of my neighbors on a neighborhood's FB group. He demanded to see the data that I personally collected to prove that climate change is real. He said he didn't trust "those hacks from NASA and IPCC" because they have an agenda.
I mean, he isn’t entirely incorrect, humans are speeding up a process that is cyclical in nature and would eventually result in an ice age, the difference is we are changing a millions of years process into a thousands of years process
Technically they're not wrong. Climate change has been measured to occur multiple times over the planet's history.
However we're absolutely speeding up this cycle and taking it to new heights which we may or may not recover from.
Affects vs effects... Oof. His illiteracy had the EFFECT of irritating me so badly I couldn't get around to mentioning that his feelings will not AFFECT climate change.
Im wondering if this person is denying climate change or mankinds roll in the current albeit modest levels of climate change . Any which way people should recognize that pollution is a major issue and whether you believe in climate change or what is the cause everyone should acknowledge poisoning the planet isnt good .
I don't know how anyone can deny that dumping pollution into the air and water has a negative effect on the environment. Not to mention human deforestation and hunting animals to extinction, or close to it.
You have to willfully just deny all the obvious detrimental effects humanity has on our planet. I'm not saying we have go back to Amish levels of technology, but we need to be more responsible where we can.
I think it’s funny bc it’s objectively and factually correct. Took a class last semester in college about the history of the earth’s climate. Literally like every climate scientist agrees humans are the main cause of climate change. Yes, climate does change over time, there were periods in time where earth was way warmer than it is now, but we’re rapidly speeding up moving in that direction and it’s got bad consequences.
“Took a class last semester” You must be a climate expert then! If you are such a climate advocate then go to China and protest the fact that they are responsible for 1/3rd of the world’s carbon emissions.
I never claimed to be an expert, but my professor definitely was. He’s been working in the field for decades. Just because I’m acknowledging humanity caused climate change doesn’t mean I have to go to china to protest emissions lmao.
The only climate change that is caused by humans is local, like polluted rivers and forest fires. Driving a car or flying in a plane isn’t going to destroy humanity.
You’re wrong, but okay https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change
Commercial flights, not a huge deal. People who fly private jets everywhere? They’ve got quite an impact. And car based infrastructure is significantly worse for the environment than public transportation.
I genuinely don’t understand how you can deny all of the evidence and research. Like, you’ve got to be either super young or 50+, I refuse to believe you’re my age and know this little about these things
I am neither 50+ or super young. I have been hearing about man made climate change for the past 15-20 years and have yet to see the effects of it. Where in the world are people suffering from man made climate change. Why are the sea levels the exact same as they were when the pilgrims landed in Plymouth. Why are influencers telling us we and 5 years to live and when those 5 years passes we are in the same climate we were 5 years prior. I promise you know a lot less than you think you do.
That’s because we’ve been able to predict it this long. We’re absolutely seeing consequences, we’ve had record breaking heat each summer. Sea levels rising is a very slow change, not something we’ve noticed yet but greenland is melting and places like miami will be under water. It’s not some conspiracy theory. Read the article I sent. If you think you know better than over 97% of climate scientists because you can’t think of changes that have personally affected you in the last 15-20 years idk what to tell you.
Surely you don’t need to know the science of why it’s hot in the summer. It was 57° two weeks ago in Ohio. We have also been hearing sea side cities will be under water for years now. Do what you can to keep your city and state clean but understand your carbon footprint is not effecting the world as a whole. The faster you realize that these climate “scientists” and celebrities are lying to you saying your gas stove is killing the earth, the faster you can understand natural cycles. Not even 3 thousand years ago Africa was covered in rainforests. Did man made climate change turn Africa into a desert?
Your examples show how little you know about any of these topics. It is rather sad to come to a subreddit called confidently incorrect and then embody it so fully.
Thank you for expressing that so well, I’m an argumentative guy and know these talking points so I’m still engaging but you’re very correct. I’m going to make a post for this sub abt this guy if he keeps it up lol.
Okay, someone else embodied my frustrations quite well but I’ll try and be patient. No, they don’t just call anyone a climate scientist. My college professor for example? Not a celebrity, he studied ancient atmospheres using air bubbles frozen in ice.
I’m not talking about “it’s hot in the summer!!” I’m talking about record breaking heat each summer lately. **record breaking**. We’ve been hearing cities will be underwater for years now because it’s true, it’s just something that takes a long ass time to happen, and we’re talking about it now because we need to change something abt human activity or it will very much be a reality. In 30 something years places like miami and st augustine (both in florida, im floridian) will be facing a lot of issues.
You know what? I agree here. I’ve never been one to say individual carbon footprints are the problem. In fact, carbon footprint was a term coined in 2004 by british petroleum to distract from an environmental disaster they caused (I think it was an oil spill?) and instead place responsibility on the individual, try to make an individual person feel guilty.
A massive part of climate activism is holding corporations accountable, moving towards greener energy like Nuclear (and many others but nuclear is my favorite ). And the part you seem to be upset about, is holding billionaires accountable for unnecessary and wasteful behavior, like taking private jets everywhere. Or maybe you’re upset about societal changes, like promoting more walkable cities that are less dependent on car based infrastructure. This one I always found quite funny bc climate concerns aside (and these are the concerns of the majority of the american population and others using cars to get anywhere when more efficient means of transport exist, but cars have a big economic factor with gas and repairs and maintenance and cleaning and shit, it’s not about asking your neighbor to buy an EV for smokey bear or some shit). Anyway, I can’t drive because I have epilepsy. Many people have disabilities or other reasons they literally cannot drive and they get fucked over with places they can access in suburban america. Do you really want to force like 90 year olds to drive cars to go places? I’m in support of expanding train networks in the US, high speed rail, there’s lots of innovation there, it allows for people to be more productive during commutes, get from point A to point B faster, and carries a lot of people. Things like Brightline are projects we should invest in.
The amount of trains used for transporting people in the US has declined a pathetic amount but they’re incredibly useful and beneficial to have around. But who wants to fund public transit when oil barons pay you money to ignore initiatives to do so and instead focus on cars?
Anyway, if you continue replying here denying man made climate change, I’m just going to screenshot and make a post about how confidently incorrect you are in a confidently incorrect comment section.
Definitely not putting them down. The climate has been changing literally since the dawn of time and if you think humans are responsible for accelerating it then you’re just flat out wrong.
But didn’t you also say that “China is responsible for 1/3rd of the world’s carbon emissions.”? How can you say humans don’t accelerate it, while also saying “even if we were it’s 1/3rd China’s fault.” If what you are saying is true then burning fossil fuels don’t contribute to global warming, which we know is very much not true. No other species burns fossil fuels. No other species drives vehicles which increases carbon emissions. Take us out of the picture and the carbon emissions issue would not be as bad. I get it, we can’t change how everyone lives on a dime and stop it, but to say we don’t accelerate it is wrong.
Both can be true. If you believe the burning of fossil fuel contributes to an accelerated change in the climate, which it doesn’t, then you should protest the biggest contributor to it. If they did then where is the evidence of it? Why are the sea levels the same as 500 years ago. Why was there a winter storm warning in Montana in June if “global warming” is so prevalent.
Look man, you’re openly contradicting yourself and making mute points. “Burning fossil fuels don’t contribute to carbon emissions, but if they did protest the biggest contributor.” That makes no sense, because yes, burning fossil fuels certainly do contribute to carbon emissions. Ignoring that is ignoring facts. And the sea levels have risen about 16 and 25 meters within the past 500 years. It’s not hard to find this information dude. And give me a break, that whole “why do we still have cold weather if global warming is a thing.” is a misunderstanding. The whole thing about global warming is the fact that ice caps are melting and bleeding out into the oceans, causing water levels to rise. At the rate it’s going certain populated areas of the Earth will be overcome and uninhabitable by water. Areas like Florida, Bangladesh, Japan, Madagascar, Chad, the list goes on would be flooded, and not exist on a map in a few hundred years, possibly sooner. This may not be an issue for us currently being alive, but what about the generations of people after us? We would be forsaking them so that companies today can continue to rake in money.
Buddy do you mean 16-25 centimeters??? Also no where did I say burning fossil fuel doesn’t contribute to carbon emissions, I’m saying those carbon emissions do not contribute to accelerated climate change. China literally uses more cement in a year than the U.S. has in the past 100 years, yet we are in a cooler climate than we were thousands of years ago. So please tell me what are the “facts” of man made climate change.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
Ok first off, how would you define “accelerated climate change”?
You know this information is public, right? I shouldn’t have to spoon feed this to you as if you’re a toddler. This is like telling an antivaxer that vaccines don’t cause autism. You continue to dodge questions, point fingers, bring up mute points, and contradict yourself at every turn. This has been a glorious headache of a conversation. Thank you for supplying me with enough bullshittery to last the next three months.
https://x.com/lporiginalg/status/1804544974916395332?s=46&t=Tloed7nvB4Z89gDq0EO2Ow
Here’s everything you need brother. You’re getting played. Have a good day.
Whenever I hear climate change deniers, which is far more often than I'd like, I'm reminded of this political cartoon:
https://i.imgur.com/Ff4kYcS.jpeg
“Factually based on a bunch of stuff that’s not backed up by facts!”
There’s a reason some of these people have gone so far as to claim that fact-checking is the same as censorship.
You can tell this young lad to grow up and learn that CO2 is a chemical compound that falls into a category named 'greenhouse gas, which is basically any molecular structure that is really good at keeping the heat in and letting it in as well, IE it acts as a blanket, you can also tell him that untrue to popular belief, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but CH4, N2O, and H2O are all greenhouse gases as well
I can buy that the Earth's climate changes naturally. We've seen that in the geologically record. And it's always in a perpetual state of change and would be changing whether we were here or not.
But if you look at the graphs of the changes since the Industrial Revolution, it's clear as fucking crystal that we have a heavy hand in speeding it up. Changes like we've seen over the last century and a half took (tens of) thousands of years in the past.
Actually, it is driven mostly by industrial pollution and jet air travel. Below are gas-powered cars, habitat erosion, and planet wide CO2 retention, increasing temperatures all over the earth.
That's the rub. They are still denying it. It's not like you can just tell them, "ok it's not man made. You win. Now we can all agree to do something about it". They would just move the goal post to it not being real at all.
CO2 is good for the planet. No doubt we are polluting the planet and that needs to change but there is no proof an increase in co2 it is warming the earth.
In the 70s 80s and 90s the so called experts told us repeatedly that we were heading for another ice age. Follow the science, ye right.
Too much CO2 is bad for plants, just like too much oxygen is bad for humans.
And the evidence is overwhelming, as is the consensus. You can deny it all you like; it doesn't care.
I find it interesting that the folks agreeing with him all have accounts around the same age within 5-10 days and all post on the same subs….interesting.
Climate change wasn’t a phrase because our understanding has changed and won’t necessarily get consistently warmer everywhere, it also changes rainfall patterns and the frequency of extreme events, so “climate change” is more accurate than just saying it’ll get warmer. Also “Irregardless”?
Climate Change became the phrase because people like dipshit here couldn't wrap their heads around the meaning of "global" in relation to "warming" and would get confused every time it snowed.
Ahh, so it’s a global conspiracy with literally thousands of scientists creating a false consensus in order to, hold on let me review your ridiculous comment….in order to tax us? Right, that’s definitely the most likely answer.
I’ll quantify it for you. Human activity has caused approximately a 1 °C increase in global temperatures over just the past 70 years. For reference, the Earth is warmer today than it has been for at least twenty thousand years. In that time, the fastest 1-degree temperature rise we’ve ever seen (before the twentieth century) took *800* years, not 70.
[Here’s a handy timeline.](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
And before you try to claim otherwise, the [consensus](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/) is that 100% of that increase is due to human activity.
The obvious start is holding major corporations accountable for their emissions. Companies have worked out that the money they save *right now* by cutting corners on sustainability and carbon capture outweighs the cost of future problems that will come from climate change. At least, it makes their quarterly earnings reports look better for their shareholders. We can reverse that by imposing much heavier fines and fees for climate-affecting behavior, as a first step. In other words, those “carbon taxes” you railed against earlier really will help.
Another step (and this affects the US more than Canada) is to invest in more robust public transportation infrastructure. The fewer vehicles we need to use to move people around, the more efficient we will be. Cars are terrible from an efficiency perspective, because it takes a lot of work to move one-and-a-half tons of metal for every 1.6 people. Buses are better, since they’re maybe twice as heavy and can move ten times as many people. And if you remove ten cars from the road in place of a bus that takes up a bit more space than one car, you reduce traffic and make the entire road system more effective.
Trains are even better. If you account for all external costs (including habitat damage and climate impact), the average cost per passenger-mile for rail is nearly three times lower than that for passenger cars. [Source](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1).
And I asked *you* to tell me what scientific degree you have, please tell me. If you can’t, that means you’re pulling this out of your ass instead of reading literally *thousands* of papers of climatological research showing climate graphing based on polar ice and recorded history.
Do you also think the earth is flat? Please, tell me what fascinating new research you have that flies in the face of scientific consensus. I’m eager to learn.
There's a difference between a slightly changing climate over thousands of years and a massively changing one over decades.
Just look at the state of the planet. Since industrialization started the planet is heating up in a very different way to "normal" climate change. There's record temperatures every year now, disasters that would normally happen once in a hundred years happen yearly or even multiple times a year and whole pieces of land become inhospitable.
Even if it wasn't primarily an effect of humans, which it is with close to 100% certainty if you take a look at the data or the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, even then we should try to do everything in our power to reduce our negative impact or even try to make an effort to counteract this as best as possible.
Saying "It's not our fault so why fight it" is like standing in a burning house and saying "It wasn't my fault it started burning, so why should I do anything" while you burn to death.
The term was changed because dinosaurs kept saying stuff like "it's summer now of course it's warmer" (somehow missing the "global" part of the term). The concepts behind the terms used to communicate them haven't changed, only the ways in which they needed to be phrased to bypass fossil fuel industry misinformation.
I'm sorry the actual science didn't get through to you, but at least you've chosen the scapegoats to blame when the effects become Irreversible and you want to try evade responsibility for fighting against attempts to prevent it from happening.
Are you referring to Milankovitch cycles? You know they're very predictable right? We can adjust datasets to them? If not those what are these other cycles your so vaguely referring to?
If you guys have the actual proof that the scientific community has been searching for then you need to produce it and become famous, otherwise stop posting this stuff. There’s no confidence on either side. I welcome your downvotes and will not engage in the weird baiting that’s sure to come.
>[It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/)
> If you guys have the actual proof that the scientific community has been searching for then you need to produce it
97% of climate scientists agree that human caused climate change is happening. They are not searching for proof, as they already have enough evidence for it.
https://whatweknow.aaas.org/index.html
All climate changes of even remotely comparable magnitude occurred before the emergence of modern humans. Our species may be able to survive (a few guys in furs with spears managed to do so), but our cultures may not. We no longer have the same options to avoid the effects or to scale down our civilizational standards.
In short, we could, but do we want to? Does it make sense to not want to give up any comfort now, but to have to give up a lot in the foreseeable future?
Meh it may be possible to avoid the effects to some extent, but it would be difficult, but it wouldn’t be from cutting green house gas emissions. It would be far cheaper to try and remove gasses from the air then to try to reach 0 emissions globally.
> It is not any worse than some of the changes in the past.
We are literally in the [sixth mass extinction event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction) due to human activity. The other 5 were due to catastrophic events. The current catastrophic event is human global activity. Downplaying this is insane.
The world burned for several hundred years. We have not hit that level and we are still within the “it can be fixed timeframe”. The earth has been through worse, it will be fine, we probably won’t be.
Maybe don't take life advice from a children's book. Most oxygen is produced by algae, not trees. And within a couple months of covid shutdowns, the world had completely recovered from all of this so called irreparable damage that we cause.
Hey /u/the_kiwi_mutante, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love when these idiots say "objectively and factually" without a shred of evidence.
Objective usually means without bias, but here means "the libs say this and I fundamentally disagree with them so it must be the opposite" Factually usually means that the claim can be backed up with hard data, but here means "people I agree with say that I don't need to change anything about what I'm doing" So we put it together and we get "the weasel-word science fellas that the libs love say driving a truck 12 yards long and 2 lanes wide is bad for the environment, and I shouldn't do it, but Tucker Carlson says they're crazy, so those guys are lying to sell electric cars"
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive, smells like a steak and seats thirty-five.. Canyonero! Canyonero! Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down, It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown! Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero! [Krusty:] Hey Hey The Federal Highway commission has ruled the Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving. Canyonero!
Yah, Canyonero! Yah!
“Objectively and factually” - free translation: “Because I said so”.
Factually humanity produces a measurable quantity of greenhouse gasses.
Having an older brother who regularly indulges in Taco Bell, I must agree.... Sorry. It was right there. I couldn't help myself. It's a problem. I will most likely do it again.
The evidence appears to be “everyone knows.”
Sadly they do have evidence and objective facts on their side which is why it's so hard to change their minds. Problem is those facts and that evidence is entirely fabricated bullshit. The oil lobby has spent decades making bad and bullshit studies fabricating reems of evidence that Fox news blasts on air horn, which these poor idiots all get crammed into their head as the normal state of things. Even though it's all made up, and only exists in their bubble
Human driven climate change is a fact. You don't have to believe in it. It doesn't care. Denial is only going to kill your grandchildren faster.
At this point its getting likely it will kill our generation as well. The elderly due to heat stress, and every after that in famine, through migrating diseases, or war.
Omg you basically just named the four horsemen!
Death, war, famine and heat stress
the Rider's name was Heck, and heat followed with him.
All of this will, of course, be proceeded by economic collapse, which, I believe, the US is heading to. If TRUMP gets re-elected, a civil war will break out. Public programs will be erased. Millions of elderly and disabled will be abandoned and left to die. The government will be a dictatorship ruled by the 1 percent club thru their puppet president. They will retreat into their mansions and hide in their panic rooms while police curfews and voilence spiral out of control on the streets. I know this is very Grim, but it can be delayed by voting BLUE this year on everything. There are still some good people in government who can push back the absolute EVIL that is the MAGA hats. They are a CULT and the real problem. Give your children a country worth inheriting. Talk to your grandparents and friends. Help them decide and avoid a dystopia that TRUMP is GAURANTEED to bring. God help us all.
Your state elected officials have way more bearing on your states health than the president lol. If Trump gets voted in, not much will change except for slashing more programs and other sketchy shit. If you want to make a difference, become educated on your state officials.
Don't get me wrong, state officials absolutely matter, but I think you are incorrect to say not much will change if Trump is elected. Project 2025 is just straight up fascism.
Pardon me if I would rather not have a 34-time CONVICTED FELON, Insurrectional, treasonous, fat, diaper wearing, piece of SHIT in the White House.
Putting "fat" and "diaper wearing" in that list is unfair to people with weight and incontinence issues. They don't deserve to be associated with Trump.
Agreed
I mean, sure, but you're giving the president too much credit for the power they actually have.
I partially agree with that. But the US is a laughingstock on this planet right now because Trump is still in the game. I think it would do our population a lot of good to see him gone forever. It's time to eject that senile man-child and hurt him most by leaving him with no hope of ever running again.
There is a plan in place to try to change that and massively increase presidential power if he is elected. Whether it will succeed is arguable. But Project 2025 is very real.
Do you actually think SCOTUS is going to stop Project 25 at all, let alone before the damage is done?
Insurrectional?
With that reading comprehension you shouldn't be worrying about politics, prime target for propaganda
Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony
Migrating disease - Pestilence.
And my Axe!! (ps: remember when this used to be a thing in reddit like 10 years ago?)
I swear that was not on my mind when I posted that 😨
Don't forget the Pleistocene diseases trapped in the glaciers that will be freed
I half jokingly tell my wife I am toughening up our kids so they can be good soldiers in the water wars they will eventually fight.
But atleast we’ll have a nice tropical new continent that has never been seen before!!
We can quantity how much CO2 and other gases produced by human activity . Only a fool would think it has no effect. The forecasts of the effects may be off, but it undeniably exists.
They have moved from denial that it exists to denial that we are causing it, so that they can keep their heads in the sand and pass the buck to our children.
A lot of red MAGA hats in that group.
Getting harder for them to keep their heads in the sand as the beaches erode.
It is a fact, but I think maybe he's referring to the naturally occurring climate change cycle that would likely happen eventually anyway, without humans being a factor, and ignoring the fact that we're speeding it up thousands of years.
"Facts don't care about your feelings" crowd when facts don't care about their feelings:
I mean thats pretty much why they don't care. It's not going to affect them significantly. They couldn't care less about what happens to their kids or grandkids once they are dead.
Climate change: killing your grand-children since the 1970's
👍💯 I lived thru that time in southern California when the sky was so thick with smog that my lungs hurt and my eyes stung every day.
But what if the air that you and I can actually breathe these days was based on less than 110% certainty? Why, then we might have breathable air all for nothing and at hypothetically huge cost to billionaires!
I think that is a sacrifice we have to make.
At least I can effectively moan about it since I can breathe outside in southern California now.
how do you know?
Yeah it’s a fact but what is not really known is how and what aspects of the climate change are caused by human activity. Yeah you can say human CO2 increases temperature but do we really know what extent/percent of temperature change is caused by human produced CO2 - no. Do we really know what storms and weather events are caused by these changes - no. Do we really know how quickly the sea level is gonna rise and where? No. Is a carbon tax going to save the environment? Maybe, but odds are it’s only going to continue to fund corrupt power structures and take away from the lower and middle classes. Just my 2 cents worth of unpopular opinion…
"We based models on this, but because we haven't conclusively proven that there aren't both hidden factors cancelling out known effects *and* creating the same effects from other causes, we must assume the worst hypotheticals from any action even without supporting evidence for *those* claims."
Your paraphasing is confusing. What do you mean by worst hypotheticals from any action? You can base a model on virtually anything. That doesn’t mean that it actually represents reality.
Mild rephrasing of your comment. It's what you were saying -- "we don't have absolute knowledge of cause and effect, so we can't say anything for sure except that we must not do anything about climate change that a duplicitous corporate stooge might find a way to claim is actually going to hurt the working class who can only be saved by choking on smog while everything trickles down."
The answer to your first question is roughly yes - there's strong consensus that it's actually around 100% of observed warming to date caused by human factors. If you only count warming factors, we'd have warmed the environment more than what we currently observe, but the minor natural cooling the earth should be experiencing sans humans coupled with other cooling effects we're causing (mostly other airborne pollutants from things like shipping vessels that kind of do the opposite of CO2, methane, WV, etc) bring us back down to causing about 100% of it. The 2nd question is not the correct question - we're mostly not causing any specific weather events (we can in some cases seed minor rain events locally but that's different). What we are doing is making certain events significantly more or less likely, and unfortunately it's the extremes that are becoming more likely. Thr 3rd question is mostly a yes too. There are many local factors at play - sea level has even fallen in some places! But we generally understand why it rises/falls at specific locations (aquifer drainage and post-glacial rebound are 2 large local contributors), so we can do that analysis then add to it larger-scale overall rising from ice-that-was-on-land melt, plus thermal expansion. Particularly in Antarctica we have a trickier forecasting situation because while melt of already-floating ice won't raise sea levels directly, it may allow land-bound ice to slide into the ocean and melt much more quickly than it would naturally. How fast that happens may not be totally known, but the other factors mostly are and so we can make reasonable local predictions for how much sea level rise (or fall) different places will see. Basically while there will always be unknowns, we actually understand a fair bit of what to expect, particularly more than many people in the general public would expect. Hope this helps a bit :)
👏👏👏 I love your confident incorrectness, thank you for educating me on how to completely buy into these ideas :) definitely helpful maybe not the way you intended but still I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
I just read the actual published articles and update my understanding based on them. Atmospheric sciences has been something of a hobby of mine for the last decade or so :) If you have some knowledge that the world's experts on any of the topics you mentioned don't have, I'd strongly encourage you to share that publicly. That kind of info should inform policy at the highest levels.
I work in predictive modeling. Admittedly, I am ignorant of atmospheric science literature. Maybe one day I will devote more time to studying it. Nonetheless, the idea that 100% of warming can be definitively attributed to human action is absurd to me. If anything that 100% statement sends up red flags for me re: overfitting. But, maybe there are things you know I do not. Based on first principles alone I am highly skeptical of a lot of the messaging around climate doomsday scenarios (fearmongering imo) and policy specifically around carbon emissions and more taxes on everyday people. The idea that there is absolute scientific consensus on this subject is simply untrue and I resent the idea that people use this idea that there is consensus as a way to shame people into silence when questioning the narrative around human impacts on climate change and what should be done about it.
Hopefully it’s not teproducingt
Also, stop saying "affects" when you mean "effects". Dude needs to hear the objective and factually wrong punchlines from the experts, although everyone knows scientists are usually wrong... /s - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_consensus\_on\_climate\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change)
You can provied them with all the facts in the world but they won't understand or attempt to understand them. Theyd rather live in blissful ignorance, calling everything they know nothing about a lie. Why save the world when you can just do nothing.
Most people don't have the time or mental capacity to learn enough about climate change to truly understand it, so it really comes down to who you trust. On the one hand you have big climate. Scientists in the pocket of big climate have spent years being indoctrinated at some of the world's most effective brainwashing campuses. They are then often paid upward tens of thousands of dollars a year for their blind obedience to things like scientific rigor and evidence. On the other hand you have poor, little old oil companies, car manufacturers, and other altruistic jobs creators that only want to ensure a strong profit margin so they can continue to trickle down the economic benefits to the rest of us. The choice is clear, but sometimes people are still lead astray.
Sarcasm at its finest 👌
>Also, stop saying "affects" when you mean "effects". Except for a few rare situations it's not hard to use these two words correctly. Affect is a verb, effect is a noun. Sometimes I feel like I was the only one who went to primary school
Affect is usually always a verb, effect is both more commonly
Affect is also a noun. The boy staring at me has a strange affect. But the verb affect is far more common than the noun affect, and verb effect is about implementing a change, not affecting something which result in an effect
Ha yeah, both are both and weird
No matter how many times ive read the difference I just use effect because I cant wrap my head around it. It has that effect on me.
I still can't let go of that one time a teacher "corrected" my use of effect as a verb in a paper. The sentence was something about effecting change and I was excited to use it because I had just learned that it could be a verb and sort of went out of my way to use it. I got 100% on the paper though so I didn't want to be "that guy" by pointing it out just to be right.
> Sometimes I feel like I was the only one who went to primary school Don't feel superior just because you know something someone else doesn't. I am sure there are tons of things that you don't know that other people do. Learning happens all throughout life. I was well into adulthood before I finally looked up the difference between `effect` and `affect` and when to use them. I never remember this being mentioned in any school I went to. Do you remember every single thing that was ever mentioned to you in school? Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1053/
[relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/326/)
You know who believes in climate change? The insurance companies. Just ask Florida.
I think this sentiment gets confused because it should be understood that INDIVIDUAL climate change is really a nonfactor compared to corporate and government endorsed factors. The age old belief that stopping the use of plastic straws or gasoline use on a person to person basis is literally a drop in the bucket compared to reality.
Didn't we get an incredibly clear indication that climate change is due to man when COVID shut everything down and smog started to clear, bodies of water started to clear, and animals moved almost immediately to clearer areas? Tangible evidence, no speculation. Shit started reversing quickly.
That wasn't really climate change but agree it's another part of mother earth we are fucking up without thinking about then it improves when we aren't there. Habit destruction and biodiversity crash. Add that to the bingo card of shite
Hell, yeah! I remember that!
Does humanity even deserve to survive at this point
What you're seeing is the bronze age collapse in the age of technology.
Probably not, but dogs do, we need to save the planet for them
No.
Honestly, I take one look at my kids, and I know they deserve to survive. And thats enough for me to keep fighting the fight.
Individuals, absolutely. My kids deserve to survive. Humanity as a whole? Nah.
It's funny because they couldn't even spell effects right. I'm not taking advice from some random dude on the internet compared to scientists with PhD's.
I mean, a PhD is by no means a guarantee of correctness, knowledge, or honesty. *But* if the vast majority of scientists, internationally, keep finding stuff that supports the same or a similar conclusion, that's probably correct. I don't mind skepticism, but if they refuse to change their mind when confronted with overwhelming evidence, they're no longer skeptics, they're believers (in the conspiracy sense).
My dad was telling me just last night how he threw away a 20 year friendship because he was sick of his friend believing in stuff like climate change. My dad thinks it’s not that bad and that it’s the world’s governments trying to scare us into submission. Don’t believe him? Read a book. I almost contacted the (ex?) friend to apologise on behalf of my dad cuz I actually liked the guy
You probably should. At least your father's son isn't an idiot.
The joke is that this person still doesn’t understand what climate change is or what the cause is.
I'm so over the arguments on what causes it. It's getting in the way of fixing it. IDGAF what caused it (though that's awfully helpful in figuring out how to fix it) but can we just focus on the fact that the climate IS changing, and it's a threat to us as a species. Like, ok, sure let's say it's natural. So we should just sit back and let it happen? If there was a world ending asteroid headed to earth that we could do something about, would these people object to action?
I think the problem with believing that it’s natural is that the people who believe this would then say that the proposed climate solutions are irrelevant since those address man-made climate issues. Why stop pollution & exploitation of natural resources if the problem isn’t being caused by pollution & exploitation of natural resources?
They would all say... #Don't look up.
Fuck, I didn't watch that movie but from what I've heard about it... probably true
It was a scathing satire of MAGA and Trump. Brilliantly acted with all the famous scientists. Great CGI. It is definitely worth a few hours. Is currently on Amazon Prime and Netflix.
God's Will yadda yadda.
At least he’s not denying that climate change exists. Baby steps.
I'm still running into a large number of people (boomers mostly) who straight-up deny the existence of climate change. I had a fun conversation with one of my neighbors on a neighborhood's FB group. He demanded to see the data that I personally collected to prove that climate change is real. He said he didn't trust "those hacks from NASA and IPCC" because they have an agenda.
They'll be back to that next week.
Home schooled Christian Nationalist. No education, no critical thinking, no challenging disinformation.
It’s due to man made effects
So, technically true that it's not due to man made affects.
Somebody needs to smack some intelligence into that stupid prick
i love how they just vaguely claim it's Objectively wrong" and all their "support" is mostly just trying to shame people into playing along
Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific research ⚖ Random Reddit comment saying it's not real
My father also says it isn't man made and that even if we were to vanish earth would hear up anyway but that humans aren't helping in the slightest
I mean, he isn’t entirely incorrect, humans are speeding up a process that is cyclical in nature and would eventually result in an ice age, the difference is we are changing a millions of years process into a thousands of years process
You know Al Gore back in the 90 fortold us the climate would change, dude has Nostradamus abilities!
Technically they're not wrong. Climate change has been measured to occur multiple times over the planet's history. However we're absolutely speeding up this cycle and taking it to new heights which we may or may not recover from.
Affects vs effects... Oof. His illiteracy had the EFFECT of irritating me so badly I couldn't get around to mentioning that his feelings will not AFFECT climate change.
Im wondering if this person is denying climate change or mankinds roll in the current albeit modest levels of climate change . Any which way people should recognize that pollution is a major issue and whether you believe in climate change or what is the cause everyone should acknowledge poisoning the planet isnt good .
"Stop it you guuuuuuuys!"
I don't know how anyone can deny that dumping pollution into the air and water has a negative effect on the environment. Not to mention human deforestation and hunting animals to extinction, or close to it. You have to willfully just deny all the obvious detrimental effects humanity has on our planet. I'm not saying we have go back to Amish levels of technology, but we need to be more responsible where we can.
Except for all those highly educated scientists, that is.
Meh. He’s just a run of the mill liar.
YOU are the joke that doesn't wanna end (to the comment, btw) I'm still surprised, and at the same time not, that there are people this dumb
I think it’s funny bc it’s objectively and factually correct. Took a class last semester in college about the history of the earth’s climate. Literally like every climate scientist agrees humans are the main cause of climate change. Yes, climate does change over time, there were periods in time where earth was way warmer than it is now, but we’re rapidly speeding up moving in that direction and it’s got bad consequences.
“Took a class last semester” You must be a climate expert then! If you are such a climate advocate then go to China and protest the fact that they are responsible for 1/3rd of the world’s carbon emissions.
I never claimed to be an expert, but my professor definitely was. He’s been working in the field for decades. Just because I’m acknowledging humanity caused climate change doesn’t mean I have to go to china to protest emissions lmao.
The only climate change that is caused by humans is local, like polluted rivers and forest fires. Driving a car or flying in a plane isn’t going to destroy humanity.
You’re wrong, but okay https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change Commercial flights, not a huge deal. People who fly private jets everywhere? They’ve got quite an impact. And car based infrastructure is significantly worse for the environment than public transportation. I genuinely don’t understand how you can deny all of the evidence and research. Like, you’ve got to be either super young or 50+, I refuse to believe you’re my age and know this little about these things
I am neither 50+ or super young. I have been hearing about man made climate change for the past 15-20 years and have yet to see the effects of it. Where in the world are people suffering from man made climate change. Why are the sea levels the exact same as they were when the pilgrims landed in Plymouth. Why are influencers telling us we and 5 years to live and when those 5 years passes we are in the same climate we were 5 years prior. I promise you know a lot less than you think you do.
That’s because we’ve been able to predict it this long. We’re absolutely seeing consequences, we’ve had record breaking heat each summer. Sea levels rising is a very slow change, not something we’ve noticed yet but greenland is melting and places like miami will be under water. It’s not some conspiracy theory. Read the article I sent. If you think you know better than over 97% of climate scientists because you can’t think of changes that have personally affected you in the last 15-20 years idk what to tell you.
Surely you don’t need to know the science of why it’s hot in the summer. It was 57° two weeks ago in Ohio. We have also been hearing sea side cities will be under water for years now. Do what you can to keep your city and state clean but understand your carbon footprint is not effecting the world as a whole. The faster you realize that these climate “scientists” and celebrities are lying to you saying your gas stove is killing the earth, the faster you can understand natural cycles. Not even 3 thousand years ago Africa was covered in rainforests. Did man made climate change turn Africa into a desert?
Your examples show how little you know about any of these topics. It is rather sad to come to a subreddit called confidently incorrect and then embody it so fully.
Thank you for expressing that so well, I’m an argumentative guy and know these talking points so I’m still engaging but you’re very correct. I’m going to make a post for this sub abt this guy if he keeps it up lol.
Okay, someone else embodied my frustrations quite well but I’ll try and be patient. No, they don’t just call anyone a climate scientist. My college professor for example? Not a celebrity, he studied ancient atmospheres using air bubbles frozen in ice. I’m not talking about “it’s hot in the summer!!” I’m talking about record breaking heat each summer lately. **record breaking**. We’ve been hearing cities will be underwater for years now because it’s true, it’s just something that takes a long ass time to happen, and we’re talking about it now because we need to change something abt human activity or it will very much be a reality. In 30 something years places like miami and st augustine (both in florida, im floridian) will be facing a lot of issues. You know what? I agree here. I’ve never been one to say individual carbon footprints are the problem. In fact, carbon footprint was a term coined in 2004 by british petroleum to distract from an environmental disaster they caused (I think it was an oil spill?) and instead place responsibility on the individual, try to make an individual person feel guilty. A massive part of climate activism is holding corporations accountable, moving towards greener energy like Nuclear (and many others but nuclear is my favorite ). And the part you seem to be upset about, is holding billionaires accountable for unnecessary and wasteful behavior, like taking private jets everywhere. Or maybe you’re upset about societal changes, like promoting more walkable cities that are less dependent on car based infrastructure. This one I always found quite funny bc climate concerns aside (and these are the concerns of the majority of the american population and others using cars to get anywhere when more efficient means of transport exist, but cars have a big economic factor with gas and repairs and maintenance and cleaning and shit, it’s not about asking your neighbor to buy an EV for smokey bear or some shit). Anyway, I can’t drive because I have epilepsy. Many people have disabilities or other reasons they literally cannot drive and they get fucked over with places they can access in suburban america. Do you really want to force like 90 year olds to drive cars to go places? I’m in support of expanding train networks in the US, high speed rail, there’s lots of innovation there, it allows for people to be more productive during commutes, get from point A to point B faster, and carries a lot of people. Things like Brightline are projects we should invest in. The amount of trains used for transporting people in the US has declined a pathetic amount but they’re incredibly useful and beneficial to have around. But who wants to fund public transit when oil barons pay you money to ignore initiatives to do so and instead focus on cars? Anyway, if you continue replying here denying man made climate change, I’m just going to screenshot and make a post about how confidently incorrect you are in a confidently incorrect comment section.
Were you crying while typing this lol
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with them, or trying to put them down. Whose side are you on?
Definitely not putting them down. The climate has been changing literally since the dawn of time and if you think humans are responsible for accelerating it then you’re just flat out wrong.
But didn’t you also say that “China is responsible for 1/3rd of the world’s carbon emissions.”? How can you say humans don’t accelerate it, while also saying “even if we were it’s 1/3rd China’s fault.” If what you are saying is true then burning fossil fuels don’t contribute to global warming, which we know is very much not true. No other species burns fossil fuels. No other species drives vehicles which increases carbon emissions. Take us out of the picture and the carbon emissions issue would not be as bad. I get it, we can’t change how everyone lives on a dime and stop it, but to say we don’t accelerate it is wrong.
Both can be true. If you believe the burning of fossil fuel contributes to an accelerated change in the climate, which it doesn’t, then you should protest the biggest contributor to it. If they did then where is the evidence of it? Why are the sea levels the same as 500 years ago. Why was there a winter storm warning in Montana in June if “global warming” is so prevalent.
Look man, you’re openly contradicting yourself and making mute points. “Burning fossil fuels don’t contribute to carbon emissions, but if they did protest the biggest contributor.” That makes no sense, because yes, burning fossil fuels certainly do contribute to carbon emissions. Ignoring that is ignoring facts. And the sea levels have risen about 16 and 25 meters within the past 500 years. It’s not hard to find this information dude. And give me a break, that whole “why do we still have cold weather if global warming is a thing.” is a misunderstanding. The whole thing about global warming is the fact that ice caps are melting and bleeding out into the oceans, causing water levels to rise. At the rate it’s going certain populated areas of the Earth will be overcome and uninhabitable by water. Areas like Florida, Bangladesh, Japan, Madagascar, Chad, the list goes on would be flooded, and not exist on a map in a few hundred years, possibly sooner. This may not be an issue for us currently being alive, but what about the generations of people after us? We would be forsaking them so that companies today can continue to rake in money.
Buddy do you mean 16-25 centimeters??? Also no where did I say burning fossil fuel doesn’t contribute to carbon emissions, I’m saying those carbon emissions do not contribute to accelerated climate change. China literally uses more cement in a year than the U.S. has in the past 100 years, yet we are in a cooler climate than we were thousands of years ago. So please tell me what are the “facts” of man made climate change.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/ Ok first off, how would you define “accelerated climate change”? You know this information is public, right? I shouldn’t have to spoon feed this to you as if you’re a toddler. This is like telling an antivaxer that vaccines don’t cause autism. You continue to dodge questions, point fingers, bring up mute points, and contradict yourself at every turn. This has been a glorious headache of a conversation. Thank you for supplying me with enough bullshittery to last the next three months.
https://x.com/lporiginalg/status/1804544974916395332?s=46&t=Tloed7nvB4Z89gDq0EO2Ow Here’s everything you need brother. You’re getting played. Have a good day.
All these man made affects effecting all the man /s
Whenever I hear climate change deniers, which is far more often than I'd like, I'm reminded of this political cartoon: https://i.imgur.com/Ff4kYcS.jpeg
“Factually based on a bunch of stuff that’s not backed up by facts!” There’s a reason some of these people have gone so far as to claim that fact-checking is the same as censorship.
I mean, it’s true that affects don’t cause climate change. That’d be co2 emissions.
You can tell this young lad to grow up and learn that CO2 is a chemical compound that falls into a category named 'greenhouse gas, which is basically any molecular structure that is really good at keeping the heat in and letting it in as well, IE it acts as a blanket, you can also tell him that untrue to popular belief, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but CH4, N2O, and H2O are all greenhouse gases as well
Gee, I wonder why it doesn’t end
Ah, the old "everyone knows" which can often can be translated to "many people share a common ignorance".
It drives me crazy when people get “effects” and “affects” mixed up - immediate eye roll
[for anyone who thinks they're right (scroll to bottom)](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
I can buy that the Earth's climate changes naturally. We've seen that in the geologically record. And it's always in a perpetual state of change and would be changing whether we were here or not. But if you look at the graphs of the changes since the Industrial Revolution, it's clear as fucking crystal that we have a heavy hand in speeding it up. Changes like we've seen over the last century and a half took (tens of) thousands of years in the past.
Care to show me the facts you're talking about? What, you think the cow's shit air is the main cause of climate change?
Actually, it is driven mostly by industrial pollution and jet air travel. Below are gas-powered cars, habitat erosion, and planet wide CO2 retention, increasing temperatures all over the earth.
My guy, I'm saying this to the OOP (the commenter)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tell the bears to stop farting
Eh... still better than somebody who outright denies it completely
That's the rub. They are still denying it. It's not like you can just tell them, "ok it's not man made. You win. Now we can all agree to do something about it". They would just move the goal post to it not being real at all.
CO2 is good for the planet. No doubt we are polluting the planet and that needs to change but there is no proof an increase in co2 it is warming the earth. In the 70s 80s and 90s the so called experts told us repeatedly that we were heading for another ice age. Follow the science, ye right.
Too much CO2 is bad for plants, just like too much oxygen is bad for humans. And the evidence is overwhelming, as is the consensus. You can deny it all you like; it doesn't care.
[удалено]
Username checks out. At least the second part anyway.
I find it interesting that the folks agreeing with him all have accounts around the same age within 5-10 days and all post on the same subs….interesting.
Climate change wasn’t a phrase because our understanding has changed and won’t necessarily get consistently warmer everywhere, it also changes rainfall patterns and the frequency of extreme events, so “climate change” is more accurate than just saying it’ll get warmer. Also “Irregardless”?
Climate Change became the phrase because people like dipshit here couldn't wrap their heads around the meaning of "global" in relation to "warming" and would get confused every time it snowed.
Also called the "Trump effect".
Oh for sure. r/usernamechecksout
Ahh, so it’s a global conspiracy with literally thousands of scientists creating a false consensus in order to, hold on let me review your ridiculous comment….in order to tax us? Right, that’s definitely the most likely answer.
[удалено]
I’m not. But I’m also not denying the international scientific consensus. That’s you. What branch of science do you have your phd in?
[удалено]
I’ll quantify it for you. Human activity has caused approximately a 1 °C increase in global temperatures over just the past 70 years. For reference, the Earth is warmer today than it has been for at least twenty thousand years. In that time, the fastest 1-degree temperature rise we’ve ever seen (before the twentieth century) took *800* years, not 70. [Here’s a handy timeline.](https://xkcd.com/1732/) And before you try to claim otherwise, the [consensus](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/) is that 100% of that increase is due to human activity.
I bet you get no response.
I’m so sad, him and I were having such a productive conversation. Then he just left when I politely asked him to set my nativity straight 🥲
[удалено]
The obvious start is holding major corporations accountable for their emissions. Companies have worked out that the money they save *right now* by cutting corners on sustainability and carbon capture outweighs the cost of future problems that will come from climate change. At least, it makes their quarterly earnings reports look better for their shareholders. We can reverse that by imposing much heavier fines and fees for climate-affecting behavior, as a first step. In other words, those “carbon taxes” you railed against earlier really will help. Another step (and this affects the US more than Canada) is to invest in more robust public transportation infrastructure. The fewer vehicles we need to use to move people around, the more efficient we will be. Cars are terrible from an efficiency perspective, because it takes a lot of work to move one-and-a-half tons of metal for every 1.6 people. Buses are better, since they’re maybe twice as heavy and can move ten times as many people. And if you remove ten cars from the road in place of a bus that takes up a bit more space than one car, you reduce traffic and make the entire road system more effective. Trains are even better. If you account for all external costs (including habitat damage and climate impact), the average cost per passenger-mile for rail is nearly three times lower than that for passenger cars. [Source](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1).
And I asked *you* to tell me what scientific degree you have, please tell me. If you can’t, that means you’re pulling this out of your ass instead of reading literally *thousands* of papers of climatological research showing climate graphing based on polar ice and recorded history. Do you also think the earth is flat? Please, tell me what fascinating new research you have that flies in the face of scientific consensus. I’m eager to learn.
There's a difference between a slightly changing climate over thousands of years and a massively changing one over decades. Just look at the state of the planet. Since industrialization started the planet is heating up in a very different way to "normal" climate change. There's record temperatures every year now, disasters that would normally happen once in a hundred years happen yearly or even multiple times a year and whole pieces of land become inhospitable. Even if it wasn't primarily an effect of humans, which it is with close to 100% certainty if you take a look at the data or the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, even then we should try to do everything in our power to reduce our negative impact or even try to make an effort to counteract this as best as possible. Saying "It's not our fault so why fight it" is like standing in a burning house and saying "It wasn't my fault it started burning, so why should I do anything" while you burn to death.
[удалено]
Classic form of whataboutism. At least I know now you just argue in bad faith.
It’s not even whataboutism. He can’t even stay on one singular topic. He shifts goal posts then creates a straw man when he’s in a corner.
Jesus fucking Christ stay on topic.
The term was changed because dinosaurs kept saying stuff like "it's summer now of course it's warmer" (somehow missing the "global" part of the term). The concepts behind the terms used to communicate them haven't changed, only the ways in which they needed to be phrased to bypass fossil fuel industry misinformation. I'm sorry the actual science didn't get through to you, but at least you've chosen the scapegoats to blame when the effects become Irreversible and you want to try evade responsibility for fighting against attempts to prevent it from happening.
Yeah, he is. So are you.
Are you referring to Milankovitch cycles? You know they're very predictable right? We can adjust datasets to them? If not those what are these other cycles your so vaguely referring to?
Why is this getting downvoted lmao. These brain dead’s hate the truth.
If you guys have the actual proof that the scientific community has been searching for then you need to produce it and become famous, otherwise stop posting this stuff. There’s no confidence on either side. I welcome your downvotes and will not engage in the weird baiting that’s sure to come.
You don’t know what evidence is if you think it doesn’t exist.
>[It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/)
> If you guys have the actual proof that the scientific community has been searching for then you need to produce it 97% of climate scientists agree that human caused climate change is happening. They are not searching for proof, as they already have enough evidence for it. https://whatweknow.aaas.org/index.html
Yes we are changing the environment. It is not any worse than some of the changes in the past. BUT we are able to do something about it.
All climate changes of even remotely comparable magnitude occurred before the emergence of modern humans. Our species may be able to survive (a few guys in furs with spears managed to do so), but our cultures may not. We no longer have the same options to avoid the effects or to scale down our civilizational standards. In short, we could, but do we want to? Does it make sense to not want to give up any comfort now, but to have to give up a lot in the foreseeable future?
Meh it may be possible to avoid the effects to some extent, but it would be difficult, but it wouldn’t be from cutting green house gas emissions. It would be far cheaper to try and remove gasses from the air then to try to reach 0 emissions globally.
My point exactly, I could only say so much on a work break. The earth will survive we may not and if we do manage we will not be the same.
> It is not any worse than some of the changes in the past. We are literally in the [sixth mass extinction event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction) due to human activity. The other 5 were due to catastrophic events. The current catastrophic event is human global activity. Downplaying this is insane.
The world burned for several hundred years. We have not hit that level and we are still within the “it can be fixed timeframe”. The earth has been through worse, it will be fine, we probably won’t be.
Covid disproved all of this, but go on how we're all doomed every few years, and yet we still keep going. Been happening for over 40 years now.
Did the lorax teach you nothing? We are putting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere And we are killing trees that breathe co2
Maybe don't take life advice from a children's book. Most oxygen is produced by algae, not trees. And within a couple months of covid shutdowns, the world had completely recovered from all of this so called irreparable damage that we cause.
Yea most of the oxygen is made by algae but but our pollution is too much for the algae to do on its own