Are people genuinely interested in learning about climate change?

Question

Are people genuinely interested in learning about climate change?

Answer 1

"Honestly I rarely see AGW realists guilty of putting a personal agenda ahead of disseminating accurate information, but denialists are usually guilty of this practice."



This statement is self-contradictory on several levels. To begin with, "sides" are drawn with very specific stereotypes and uses of words that certainly paints one side as good and one as bad. Ironically, in the very first answer to your question I find someone who fits being"more interested in pushing their own agenda and having their egos massaged".



<>



I have gone from simply believing warming is caused by OC2 emissions to the exact opposite of thinking there is a global conspiracy and some kind of cover up to simply being skeptical that it's a problem that needs to be addressed so aggressively (meaning immediacy and extent). I have seen no change here in the believers. As a matter of fact, they seem more determined, more vindictive and more caustic than ever before (that's what prompted my question about "backfire").



<>

"Polar bears numbers are falling"....I would dispute this since there are no qualifiers with this statement. If you mean all populations are falling as of right now, I'd say that's pretty hard to verify.



"Sea levels are rising faster now than at any time since the last ice-age"...I also think this is difficult to verify as well.



"Temperatures now are higher than they’ve been for at least 130,000 years"....If you mean average global temperatures, then again, I'd say verifying that is difficult. I also generally believe that a lot of globe was warmer in the MWP and RWP.



I generally agree with the other statements.



What's really interesting to me is that I have come across people who have very little knowledge about climate yet are hell bent on CO2 reductions. And their point of view is not that experts say CO2 is bad for climate, it's due to their extreme left wing and environmental views that man is basically destroying nature and thus any policy that fights against that must be good by default. I truly hope nobody like that ever get into a position of power.



Edit: Oh yeah, in answer to your main question, I am certainly interested in learning about the climate. What I have learned so far is what has taken me from believer to conspiracy theorist to skeptical of the extent of the problem.

Answer 2

I am glad you have asked this question because I am worried by the tone of much of the debate.



I am interested in learning more about climate change even though I am convinced it is a real problem. I want to know more and I want to be able to answer the doubts that exist in my mind and those of others. It is possible that in learning more my views will change but it does not seem likely.



Yes some people focus more on evidence that supports their views - that is a perfectly normal human failing. In deed there are very few people free of such tendencies. For this reason we need to be understanding of others who dismiss our views, rather than respond with anger and agression. Certainly anger and agression will result in even greater entrenchment of opposing views.



Yes some people are more concerned with pushing their personal agenda - particularly their attacks on those who hold opposing views. This is not just a waste of time; it is self defeating because, as said above, it results in even greater entrenchment.



Since I am convinced that climate change is a serious problem and that we need to take action to deal with it, my hope is that those who think similarly will cease personal attacks on their opponents and will concentrate instead on presenting evidence that may convince their opponents to change their minds. I know it has been tried before and failed but we must keep on with what might work rather than persist with what will certainly not work (agression).

Answer 3

you are an excellent teacher-keep on trucking

Answer 4

I'm interested in science and how we can fit in better with our environment. I also agree with the NOAA guy who said "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."



source: The Cooling World, Newsweek - 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Answer 5

I am very interested in studying climate change and both of the final questions are true. Below are my answers:



[ A) Temperatures now are higher than they’ve been for at least 130,000 years

B) Temperatures on Earth have been considerably higher in the past ]



I generally take both sides. I argue that temps have been warmer in the past but that does not mean the current warming is due to those same instances of the past.



[ A) Polar bears numbers are falling

B) Polar bear numbers have trebled in recent years ]



I generally argue that currently polar bear numbers are falling. Though polar bear numbers have become more populous due to laws placed on hunting them they have once again began to fall. Out of either 18 or 19, can't remember which, populations of polar bears only 1 of them is currently increasing in population while 8 others are decreasing.



[ A) Scientists predicted global warming back in the 1970’s

B) Scientists predicted global cooling back in the 1970’s ]



I generally argue that scientists predicted warming. However, some predicted cooling due to atmospheric aerosols. The same occurs after a massive volcanic eruption. It blocks out some of the sunlight so it does not reach the surface of the planet and warms it. This is why the Montreal Protocol was passed. Greenhouse gases and atmospheric sulfate-aerosols have two different effects and cause two different reactions.



[ A) Greenhouse gas concentrations have increased 40% in the last 100 years

B) Greenhouse gases are dwarfed by the other gases in the atmosphere ]



I argue A on this one. Though both are true we also have to remember that between 1% and 4% of those atmospheric gases are what cause the greenhouse effect, making the planet 33C warmer, while those others do not matter. Stating greenhouse gases make up a small percentage of the atmosphere is like saying "I don't believe in the greenhouse effect because those gases aren't as concentrated as oxygen in the atmosphere." It's an argument from misunderstanding.



[ A) Sea levels are rising faster now than at any time since the last ice-age

B) Sea levels are falling is some places and static in others ]



While I agree with both I generally argue A. I don't really think local sea level rise and fall matters. It's similar to using local weather to describe climactic trends.

Answer 6

Ice core samples would indicate it was warmer just 3000 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



Polar bear numbers have rebounded since hunting was banned.



Both are true



Sea level rise leveled off 8000 years ago. It has been incredibly slow since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png



I find it hard to believe that sea levels could rise faster in one place as opposed to another. I thought gravity was equal everywhere.



I am interested in learning, but it is human nature to ignore ideas we disagree with. You, I, and everyone else is guilty of this.



I think everyone is more concerned with pushing their little agendas...As for me, when I was a teenager, I knew AGW was real. Now in my 40's, I doubt the veracity and sincerity of the doomsayers. So my agenda is to stimulate some critical thinking skills, that are sorely lacking today.

I don't know if AGW is a genuine cause for concern or not. I just want people asking questions instead swallowing what is being fed to them.

Answer 7

Better

A) Temperatures now are higher than they’ve been for at least 130,000 years

but I wouldn't use either. Obviuosly we are in a warm period very near the highs of the interglacial. The last interglacial was about a hundred thousand years ago so you could have bumped it up to 190,000 years ago. We cannot state we are higher now. We were certainly higher 6000 years ago and it is possible that we were warmer a thousand years ago.



Neither

A) Polar bears numbers are falling

B) Polar bear numbers have trebled in recent years

Again it is neither. I hate to beat a dead horse but the fact remains that it is beyond our knowledge. Polar bears seem to be doing fine. The estimates of their numbers is not particularly reliable so I wouldn't make either statement.



B) Scientists predicted global cooling back in the 1970’s

B. Some scientists predicted it. I certainly remember it. That doesn't mean that no one predicted warming. Scientists predict all sorts of things but the primary prediction that was touted in the news was cooling. I suspect that is the case because it was politically motivated and made a good news story.



A) Greenhouse gas concentrations have increased 40% in the last 100 years

That is clearly true.



Neither:

A) Sea levels are rising faster now than at any time since the last ice-age

B) Sea levels are falling is some places and static in others

Sea levels obviously rose faster at the end of the last ice age. Your time interval needs to be more specific IMO. I am completely skeptical that we can state that the sea level has risen faster in the last 100 years than any time in the previous 10,000 years. Even if true, it may still not be particularly alarming since it doesn't compare the rate.



In science, it is important to look at all of the evidence and then make your decision. It is a difficult thing to do and is easier said than done. It is also important to consider new evidence as it is discovered.



Yes I do think some people are more interested in pushing their personal agenda than desseminating accurate information. I think that many people believe anything as long as it supports their agenda. I think many of the these people think they are on a "crusade" and are out to save the world and as such they are susceptible to exaggeration. They probably justify that exaggeration in their minds since it is to inform people how to save themselves. Sometimes that exaggeration can reach ridiculous levels.



When you ask if people are interested in "climate change", what is it you are asking? Are you asking if people are interested in learning how the climate has always changed, how it has changed naturally and recently with human influence, or are you simply asking if you want to learn how humans are causing catastrophic climate change?

Answer 8

I am interest in anything that has to do with mother earth. I listen to both sides if it is reasonable. Lots of smart people in here but I am like mark twain, first one convinces me then the other fellow sways me back his way. I feel like a ping pong ball. the real question is what if anything we can do about it. I am all for a massive effort to clean'er up. Just makes things nicer don't u think? what u smart boys think?

Answer 9

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/



The above link covers most of your questions

Answer 10

I spotted all the statements as true, or least defensible (and seeing what you were at, assumed yes to both for the polar bears, which I haven't really been following, regarding them as the least of our problems, much as I love them).



First pair, both irrelevant, except that A is relevant to the claim that the current warming is taking us into a climate regime for which we are ill prepared, and to answering people excessively impressed by Eric the Red's activities as an estate agent.



Third pair, A is relevant to showing the science has deep roots, and is relevant to rebutting those who pretend that it is a recent and politically motivated fad. B is invoked by denialists, usually to make a bogus point about the fallibility of the science; bogus because (a) there was a dearth of data in the early 1970s, (b) circumstances have changed with cleaner air, (c) the evidence for AGW, like the increase in temperature itself, is cumulative



Fourth pair, B is a bogus debating point. Water vapour has a larger influence than CO2, but is an amplifier rather than a driver. A is true and important.



Fifth pair, A is more significant, since there are heavily populated areas that are vulnerable. However, sealevel rise predictions are among the most difficult to make.



I use this section, among other things, to disseminate information that has caught my eye, and as a source of useful links. Unfortunately, some people link only to secondary sources, some highly dubious, so I do my best always to link back to the primary literature, as well as to commentaries on it.



We all suffer from confirmation bias, and can detect it more readily in our opponents than our supporters.



If there is a single thing I have learned here, it is that the uncertainties are large and are not going to go away. That is actually very bad news; if 3° looks like the most probable outcome, it is good to know that we may well get away with 1°, but if 5° also looks possible this fact is at best (pardon the pun) cold comfort.



In reply to your last question, some people here are only concerned with their own agenda, and may even be deliberately attempting to disrupt rational discourse by jeering and raising the temperature. In extreme cases, these people even make comments such as - well you can see an example here for yourself.

Answer 11

I am interested but not in all aspects of it.



I think much of the reactions to your post above show that on this board anyway the focus is on the evidence that supports their claim.



I think many o this board are simply pushing their agenda and starting online fights which amount to nothing as neither side will ever concede a point valid or otherwise



great question which you are eluding to I believe is what is a scientific debate?



I don't think we will find one here.

Answer 12

Perhaps some people have, but the extra comments you've added on to the question sounds more like the usual situation here. It's part of the reason I don't visit that much anymore. There seems to be a number of people on both sides who are more concerned with pushing their own agenda or ideologies, rather than speak the full truth.

Answer 13

The answer to your survey lies in your 2nd question about ego Trev. Ego is the power of self believe and gives people who are ego driven the right to think there the ONE and can become one minded and will stop at nothing to have the voices heard. Most psychopaths have a ego problem and have no empathy (person who doesn't care about others) I could go on about PERSONAL development problems that people suffer from but this section is about global warming/ climate change . to answer your other questions I can see what u are trying to point out that's why I tried to address the right question. Have a great day



Trev are u the rideler in disgise LOL How does your ego react to me joking around It's not ment to dent your ego

Answer 14

All statements are equally true but equally invalid. Therein lies the problem with what you consider science and what I consider science. While it is true that we have to make models and guesses at things within science, and further that we have to make assumptions for which can not test the validity, when doing so, we should recognize the assumptions made, the quality of the data used, and the amount of our knowledge that is simply a guess. Understanding all of these factors, we should be able to place some confidence on our answers. Now clearly if you have a tightly controlled test in which randomization has occurred and all factors have been controlled but the one you wish to test, you have a stronger reason to believe the answers then the simple use of historical data. Further, you would have more confidence in the historical data, then you would in the historical surrogate of the variable in question.



The type of data you are using, combined with the unblinded data manipulation needed to use that data, the many uncontrolled and indeed unknown factors that affect the climate, etc. etc. etc, leads me to not having faith in your future modeling. Now I wouldn't have much faith if you were simply placing a linear trend to the models. You are not doing this, you are placing an exponential trend. In an exponential trend, small changes now create much larger changes 100 years down the road.



Lets say for instance that in accounting for the current heat on Earth, we were missing 30% of the heat. Lets say this was missing because of some factor that was not accounted for and would continue to affect the heat content in the same manner. That 30% of heat loss now is not going to have a 30% decrease in the future model, but a much more dramatic one. Further the idea of anything being modeled exponentially and placing any certainty on the models far out in the future, is barely jsutifiable for fully understood systems, the climate is far from this.



I am dismissive of many points made, because they fail to address the real issue or they claim a level of certainty that I know you have no ability to back. I have even started only using your own numbers against you so as not to cause a debate of which numbers to use.



Lets take the example given of polar bears. Now you should know very well that the polar bears have been around for a very long time and have survived warmer conditions that what we are currently in. We can talk about how some polar bear my die, but certainly unless the exponential increase comes into play, there will be polar bears remaining. Arguing about the death of a few or even many, is truly meaningless. Even the cause of some recent deaths is unknown. With the polar bear tripling due to stopping of hunting, they were bound to reach a point in which they would naturally eat out their food supply, and have a drop again in population. So this point is truly not understood well enough to make any claim for or against just the general idea of AGW, It does nothing for the case of exponential rise. The only thing the polar bears are, is some cuddly looking animal to point to and make a picture for. The entirety of the argument for or against based upon polar bears is only for those who lack scientific understanding. And for those that think the polar bears are cuddly, go try and pet one, You will find yourself helping the polar bears population then, by feeding them, only problem, you'll be the food.



Further, Why do you warmers always use that word driver. IT IS MEANINGLESS!!!!!! There are many factors that afffect the climate, none drive it If anything is driving the temps, it is the power supply (the sun). You want to talk about feedbacks, thats fine, prove the feddback are as strong as you think they are, but this driver of the climate is just a bunch of nonsense stupid baby garbage talk that scientists should not be indulging in. THE CLIMATE IS NOT AN AUTOMOBILE!!!!!



Oh and Dana is so "not guilty" of putting his own personal agenda in front of truth that he calls those who disagree with him insane with little to no backing, but insults me when I say someone was a communist, who actually was a communist. He is just too biased to even see his own bias. I at least acknowledge that I am a little biased. I think his whole speech is absolutely absurd given the levels has gone to to insult others.

Answer 15

I got 3As and 2Bs. What do you think?



Yes! I am interested in learning about climate change. Please do send any resources that you come across.



By the way I came across this book on Climate change:

"Climate Change: The Point of No Return" by Mojib Latif

Answer 16

• Are you interested in learning about climate change, all aspects of it?



Absolutely. Learning about climate change is basically my hobby. I've read tons of books, articles, and peer-reviewed studies on the subject. I think it's a fascinating and very important subject to understand.



• Do you think some people tend to focus more on evidence to support their notions whilst being dismissive of any contrary evidence?



There's no question about that, and not just when it comes to climate science. It's important to consider all the available information, and present all of it when making an argument. For example, in the 1970s some climate scientists were predicting cooling, but they were based on scenarios which did not come to fruition (i.e. quadrupled concentration of atmospheric aerosols [Rasool], or no significant anthropogenic influence [Lamb]). And most climate scientists at the time were predicting global warming based on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.



• Do you think some people are more concerned with pushing their personal agenda than disseminating accurate information?



Absolutely. Though I think they also manage to convince themselves that they're giving accurate information. Often they'll accomplish this by only painting part of the picture, for example by stating that scientists in the '70s were predicting global cooling but not giving any additional information. It's technically true, but it's still an inaccurate portrayal of what actually happened. It's like saying that somebody punched a guy in the face and broke his nose, but omitting the fact that he's a boxer.



Honestly I rarely see AGW realists guilty of putting a personal agenda ahead of disseminating accurate information, but denialists are usually guilty of this practice.



I've been accused of pushing my 'green agenda' because I've pointed out that there are many reasons to regulate carbon emissions aside from AGW. While that's true, it doesn't change the fact that the AGW theory is correct. I also strive to provide factually correct and scientifically supported answers regardless of my 'personal agenda'. The science is what it is. What we do in response to the scientific evidence is where politics comes in, but it doesn't change the science.



In response to requests that we 'clean up' the dialogue on this site, I'm going to turn the other cheek towards CO2 Expeller's dishonest claims about me.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100718180208AAe9piV

Answer 17

Are we interested in determining whether or not people influence the climate? Yes.



Are we interested in absorbing climate change propaganda? No.

Answer 18

To be honest, I was baffled by the sets of questions. They are all true, are they not?



I am biased towards believing in global warming because I was aware of it so long ago. I discussed it in college in 1979 (there was no discussion then of cooling; I was never aware of that being taken seriously). Mostly though I am biased toward believing educated people. I make no claims of understanding the complex physics that make our climate. Nor do I claim to understand how my body works or why the gas in my car explodes to make energy. I go to experts for knowledge, just as they come to me in my field. If the was any dispute among scientists I would be less certain about global warming. But given that the experts have not doubts that it is real, I have no doubts. I am not a big believer in secret conspiracies -- especially one that would have had to happen across the globe among thousands of highly educated people speaking different languages and kept secret for three decades.

Answer 19

The "science" has been discredited. Their (the warmists') agenda of using climate fears to affect policy change has been disabled. Climate change is right there with Women's Studies in terms of importance and interest to those outside the smelly academic offices.



No one cares about climate change anymore now that policy won't be affected by silly alarmists.