Why do people not believe in climate change?


I’m not saying it is scientific, I’m saying it is logical. My explanation is there, if it is at fault, then find fault with it specifically, and not just talk about theory.


I just did. It went right over your head.

Start here:


Well there are different schools of thought on economics to explain phenomena. The Austrians predicted or pointed out a correlation between low interest rates by Greenspan and the recessions later. Even the Chicago school agreed with them on this.

Anyhow, neither those schools believe in Keynesian cycles. That’s just Keynes sweeping accountability under the rug. Because to prevent those awful cycles, you would have to do the opposite of what Keynes says you should do. In fact, if you follow Keynes, that’s what creates those nasty cycles and recessions, so he says they are perpetual.

And you and warmists insisting on long cycles with hidden dynamics is the same because they don’t like the picture that reality paints, reality bites, so they sweep it under the rug with these rhetorical arguments and mysterious “cycles.”


Jotham, let’s suppose you’re right for argument’s sake. What are your proposals for dealing with these two problems?

  1. Air pollution is still a thing.
  2. The climate controversy will persist despite your best efforts to promote a more classical (as you say) approach to science.


As for air pollution, I want it to be dealt with as it is, air pollution, and not mixed with arguments on climate change, which tends to confuse everyone, which it was meant to do. There are of course arguments about air pollution and the economy, which I think are healthy debates when it is truly about air pollution. But debating warming versus the economy is futile if the premise is faulty, and misleading when substituted as pollution.

I think Democrats inject the politics of warming as another layer to safeguard their agenda because they think they aren’t winning at creating federal heavy government regulation on the strength of just local pollution alone. Maybe because it’s more locally situated at the state level and they need to justify national laws and intervention by resorting to these global arguments, hence, the necessity to maintain global problems.

As for point 2, I don’t worry about the climate controversy persisting, which will sort itself eventually. Skepticism is growing everywhere, even Europe.

The sun is growing significantly quieter, and a science experiment is being set up before our very eyes worldwide. If temperatures drop down dramatically in the next 10 years as the sun gets quieter and gases keep increasing, the climate debate is going to die of its own inanition. I’m eagerly watching, and lots of people may end up with egg on their face who push warming for political reasons instead of scientific. So it’s wait and see how this interesting confluence of events play out.


I don’t think so. Too much money has been invested into it. It would just lead to new “studies” explaining how the drop in average temperatures is caused by (insert man-made factor X here) and more money is required.


yes, you’re right, the issue probably won’t go away, but it will have to change form and adapt. That’s why they changed the name from warming to climate change. That way if it gets cold, they’ve covered their tracks as well as for any vagary imaginable that rears its ugly head and put some other spin on it, but the main theme will always remain the same for sure: a malediction on humans using technology and capitalism; that’s the politics of it.

On the other hand, if a very strong correlation is found between solar and earth temperatures if they drop dramatically, I can’t think how they will have much credibility foisting responsibility on the roles of gases.

But then again in the 70s, they were warning global cooling, and it was “caused” by gases then wasn’t it? Well, they definitely are opportunists of the weather. We’ll always have to keep a sharp mind to keep them at bay. That’s the only answer.


Iow, nothing. Oh well. :idunno:


It’s like playing whack-a-mole here :slight_smile:

Why do people not believe in climate change?


Who are the mysterious THEY?

If feeling lonely the best place to look for fruit cakes is in the bakery.


The people doing research papers back then. I looked at the abstract of one, and they (he/she, I didn’t look) said the cause of cooling was particulates in the air. I was browsing 35 global cooling studies in the 70s, but didn’t have time to get into them to find their theory of causation.


Why don’t you browse science now?


**[quote=“jotham, post:85, topic:158975, full:true”]
As for air pollution, I want it to be dealt with as it is, air pollution, and not mixed with arguments on climate change, which tends to confuse everyone, which it was meant to do.
See, this is precisely why we shouldn’t have non-scientists (or non-technologists) involved in deciding environmental policy.

Air pollution and climate change are basically symptoms of the same underlying problems: waste and inefficiency. They have the same solutions. Everything is related to everything else, as Icon pointed out earlier. In other words, you can kill three or four birds with one stone, or even six or seven if you deploy a bit of joined-up thinking. It’s nothing to do with confusing people - although apparently it’s quite easy to confuse non-scientists.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario. India (for example) is endlessly whinging that climate change is all the fault of The West, and therefore (a) India should be free to fuck up their bit of the planet in the Name Of Progress to the same degree and (b) Westerners should pay lots of money for the damage done.

Let’s say Trump (ha!) said to the Indian government: fine, guys - here’s 50 billion dollars. You have to spend it on American PRT technology. You guys are going to be the first people on the planet to implement space-age efficient, low-cost, solar-powered transport. We’re going to see all those dollars flow back into the pockets of rich American businessmen, and you guys are going to get some awesome tech, for free, that will solve your disgraceful urban pollution and traffic-jam problem for 20 years at least. A whole bunch of low-income families will get a lot more employment opportunities because of the dramatically lower cost of transport. Oh, and incidentally, it’ll reduce your carbon emissions by about 30%.

According to the Jotham school of thought, this should be vetoed on the basis that it’s explicitly presented as climate-change mitigation.


I said this earlier that warming and pollution concerns often intersect, I wouldn’t veto your Indian plan because like you said, if it’s true that is reduces urban pollution, then there you go, I think that’s a valid concern, and you mentioned several economic concerns to boot.

but it’s also true that warming and pollution are not related, for example the carbon dioxide that we exhale, or cows belching and farting, I wouldn’t call that pollution, at least not in the sense of creating smog, etc.

Yet you will find crazies who won’t eat meat because it produces more cows who burp and belch, and therefore raises our global footprint and raises temperatures. I just…that’s for the birds. Those are confused people.

But you’ll find indeed these strait-laced scientists out there doing the Lord’s work.

There is also Sheryl Crow who went on a Global Warming College Tour and suggested that we all use one sheet of toilet paper when we gotta do the big one.

The comments were quite florid. One commentator said that one sheet of paper would increase his carbon footprint…in his pants.

I believe Rosie Odonell commented: “Have you seen my ass?”


They say that the crap of vegans is so pristine that no toilet paper at all is required (I’ve actually heard this from a vegan’s lips). I have yet to test this theory out myself…those cows and pigs just taste too good.


Sure there are wingnuts latching on to the climate-change bandwagon. That doesn’t prove that climate change per se is a hoax perpetuated by wingnuts (or the illuminati, or aliens, or whoever). Sheryl Crow is not a scientist (and doesn’t she own a ginormous ranch, btw?). Most of the cow-fart brigade are not scientists. I don’t think there are many proper climate scientists who think those cow-fart backpacks are actually sensible. It’s an idea dreamed up by people who haven’t quite grasped the nature of the problem, or who think they see a chance to make a quick buck from farmers (who are always a good target for fleecing).

OTOH, it’s an interesting example of wholesale system failure caused by politicians making up stupid rules. If CAFOs were illegal (as they damn well should be) then cow farts would be a nonexistent problem: for one thing, we’d have far fewer cows; and for another, the remaining cows would be out there doing important cow work (improving soil fertility) thus offsetting the detrimental effects of their flatulence.


I wasn’t using those examples to address the science or ratiocination of warming. I was addressing the confusion engendered by conflating the serious, objective, pragmatic issue of pollution with abstract, speculative, chimerical theory of warming, whether it be scientists or pop stars or average joes.


I suppose cows would be considered vegans. But when I step in a cow patty, I’m not thinking pristine.


Well, pristine compared to human crap anyway. I mean, there are even cow chip tossing contests. I don’t think you’d ever see the human equivalent…outside of insane asylums.


You make it sound like something that often happens to you xD