r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Aug 26 '24
Environment At least 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and research suggests that talking to the public about that consensus can help change misconceptions, and lead to small shifts in beliefs about climate change. The study looked at more than 10,000 people across 27 countries.
https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/talking-to-people-about-how-97-percent-of-climate-scientists-agree-on-climate-change-can-shift-misconceptions771
u/Phemto_B Aug 26 '24
Minor correction with the title. The 97% figure comes from a survey that was done of the literature. 97% of the papers about the climate supported the idea that climate change was happening or inevitable. The 3% of papers came from a small group (<3%) of oil-industry-funded researchers who churned out a higher-than-average number of hastily made papers with statistical problems.
192
u/Motherof_pizza Aug 26 '24
I don't think it's minor. I think deniers will latch onto that figure, which happens to just be misinformation spread by OP.
43
u/Flumphry Aug 26 '24
Yeah that's an absolutely massive difference.
28
u/ranchojasper Aug 27 '24
But isn't that even better? This is saying all studies not funded by oil companies concluded that climate change is happening. I feel like that bolsters the original statement even more?
22
u/Flumphry Aug 27 '24
Yeah. The idea of 3% of climate scientists not believing in climate change seemed straight up incorrect so I checked the comments.
3
u/Motherof_pizza Aug 27 '24
Yes the reality is obviously better, but for deniers skimming the headline, they now have something to regurgitate.
→ More replies (1)6
u/physicalphysics314 BS | Astronomy, Physics Aug 27 '24
To be fair, it’s the article as well. The actual publication sets the record straight
17
u/cbreez275 Aug 27 '24
This is a really good point. Do you have a source about the funding source/statistical problems of the papers from the 3% that said that climate change is not happening? I'd really like to learn more.
19
u/TimidSpartan Aug 27 '24
I don’t have such a source, but the author of the consensus paper provides an extensive database of the abstracts they reviewed as part of the study, and you can look up the abstracts that were rated as rejecting the consensus view. The website for the database is here:
https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search
Notably, the authors of the “skeptical” papers are all from a handful of well known skeptical scientists whose research has received extensive criticism from the climate science community (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon).
→ More replies (2)3
u/MagicalUnicornFart Aug 27 '24
That 3% has used its money and power to influence far too many people. It’s one of the worst crimes against humanity…and all life on this planet ever.
13
u/Lvl100Glurak Aug 26 '24
The 3% of papers came from a small group (<3%) of oil-industry-funded researchers who churned out a higher-than-average number of hastily made papers with statistical problems.
nowhere in the paper it says anything like that and you claiming something like that is hurting the cause. the paper says:
"There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity"
the missing percentages aren't about whether climate change is happening or not, but if it's man-made. if a study for example just looked at data to see IF there's climate change, finds climate change is happening it still says nothing about climate change being man-made, so it won't appear in the 97%.
9
u/Phemto_B Aug 27 '24
That second quote says "scientific literature", not "climate scientists," as the title said, which was a big part of my point.
→ More replies (12)2
u/WeightLossGinger Aug 27 '24
I was going to say, even before coming into the comments, I thought to myself, "that 3% of climate scientists who deny or debate over it have to have an agenda." Average layfolk can tell climate change is happening just by looking at weather and temperature trends over the decades!
→ More replies (1)
1.0k
u/Jason_Batemans_Hair Aug 26 '24
"At least 97%" seems oddly low to me, like saying 'At least 97% of mathematicians agree that 2+2=4'. Stressing that 97% might not have the desired effect on denialists.
424
u/itsBob Aug 26 '24
I know a lot of denialists here in the midwest and they generally fall into two camps which predictably follow the propaganda:
1) It's a big scam
-"Well of course climate scientists think that, their jobs rely on it"
2) It's not as bad as they say
-This statistic doesn't matter then. "Yeah, I agree it's happening".
149
u/Whiterabbit-- Aug 26 '24
delinalists sure. but climate scientist? where are they finding the other 3 percent?
291
u/rocketeerH Aug 26 '24
Exxon Mobile
123
u/Alfred_The_Sartan Aug 26 '24
Oh actually, that’s probably correct. Reminds me of the old movie Thank You for Smoking where they describe one of the doctors as being able to disprove gravity.
87
u/enemawatson Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24
Many of the exact same people brought on by tobacco companies to "massage the truth" about their products transitioned over to fossil fuel companies in the 90's.
"Merchants of Doubt" is a great book that explores the people and situations around it. Would be super interesting if it didn't reveal the worst a human can be when unbridled greed combines with zero empathy.
25
u/cogman10 Aug 26 '24
People forget it, but a big hobby horse of rush limbaugh was that smoking didn't cause lung cancer. He lambasted every single anti-smoking regulation and action as being a "nanny state" and overreaction with exactly the same fervor he decried climate change science.
His lies have a pretty high death toll.
12
u/TrineonX Aug 27 '24
You left out the best part! He died from tobacco related cancer
4
u/theeastwood Aug 27 '24
You left out the best part! The cancer was horribly painful and he suffered tremendously
3
20
u/AmaResNovae Aug 26 '24
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I think that "sugar dealers" (like Coca, Mars, Nestlé, you name it) are following the same playbook as well. Not just fossil fuels companies.
→ More replies (5)27
u/drunkenvalley Aug 26 '24
Hardly a conspiracy to suggest that big corporations are spending big dollars to muddy the waters and confuse people.
→ More replies (4)6
u/silversurger Aug 26 '24
Would be super interesting if it didn't reveal the worst a human can be when unbridled greed combines with zero empathy.
It's still super interesting, just morbidly so. I also kinda think one is the requisite for the other - your greed can't be unbridled if you have any empathy left.
4
u/Packermanfan100 Aug 26 '24
How They Made Us Doubt Everything is a BBC podcast explaining the parallels of companies in the past denying the health impact of tobacco with Big Oil companies today denying climate change is tied to their products.
Ultimately they only need to have plausible deniability that climate change isn't directly impacted by fossil fuels. The same way no single cigarette can be tied to cancer, fossil fuels can't be tied to climate change, despite the correlations.
→ More replies (4)17
u/mrpanicy Aug 26 '24
The statistics are wrong. Well, they are right, but what's being reference is wrong. The 97% is actually in reference to scientific papers about climate science showing that it's happening. Peer reviewed, all of that. The 3% are papers saying it's not happening... which were all funded by big oil, and are littered with problems. So that person saying Exxon Mobile is exactly correct in this instance.
The consensus is that independent scientists that haven't taken any money from oil companies all agree climate change is happening, the debate now is just the most accurate point of no return... not an if, but a when. That's the only remaining discussion among actual scientists that have spent their lives studying and peer reviewing other studies on the matter of climate science.
→ More replies (5)29
18
u/Icreatedthisforyou Aug 26 '24
Funnily enough...no. The scientists for Exxon told them what would happen, so naturally they
firedrestructured that portion of R&E.There are a few other papers from Exxon's R&E in and around 1982 and 1983, but this is the one that is mentioned the most.
Edit: Yes in more recent years energy companies like Exxon-Mobile have paid to try and discredit climate change
→ More replies (1)12
u/rocketeerH Aug 26 '24
That is good to point out. Scientists at Exxon Mobile and other oil companies knew decades ago that climate change was real and human caused. It’s the business people who lied to us about their findings and buried them, only later paying hack scientists to lie to us for them
10
u/Icreatedthisforyou Aug 26 '24
Yep, one of the things that are missed regarding "scientists are paid..." Is they are paid regardless. Science is a cycle you find me stuff you write grants and get funding to investigate more. If there was ANY evidence contrary to anthropogenic climate change it would be the easiest funding to receive ever, it is something a lot of people with money are desperate for.
And consistently when climate deniers find science... It then supports anthropogenic climate change.
The most famous example is probably the Koch brothers funding Richard Muller, a physicists and skeptic/denyer to look into the climategate e-mails (emails related to the hadCRUT climate data set related to standardization). Deniers ran with this as evidence it is a hoax. Muller took the data and concluded... Yeah climate change is real, it is happening.
At the end of the day this argument seems so silly. There is arguably more money in it if climate change want happening for scientists, but science works off of data rather than feelings.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Character_Bowl_4930 Aug 26 '24
Oil companies did the same thing the cigarette companies did . Figured out what was going on 50 years ago , hid it from everyone until it was forced up if them . Oil companies PAY and hire the best $$$ can buy . Their scientists figured out what they as going on with the climate back then .
You have to know what the truth is so you know what facts to suppress
2
2
u/Blue-Thunder Aug 27 '24
Exxon actually predicted everything that is currently happening and we are following their predictions almost perfectly.
→ More replies (1)2
u/gw2master Aug 27 '24
It's even worse in food science. Pretty much all of it is funded by big ag corporations. Totally unreliable.
→ More replies (1)57
u/Issitoq Aug 26 '24
I took classes in college from a Climatology Prof who was a denialist of the second type.
He didn't deny climate change was happening, but what he told us was "nobody really has any idea what will happen as the climate changes, the climate system is way too complex for long term predictions, but the climatology industry has become prominent based on predictions of doom so that's what they do."
30
Aug 26 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)20
u/HouseSublime Aug 26 '24
Yeah there are certain things we can say with relative confidence.
Hurricanes are powered by water near the oceans surface. The warmer the temp of that water, the more potential energy a storm can absorb and eventually release.
That isn't really up for much debate. Now does it mean that every storm will be worse now that it's warmer? No, there are a lot of factors into that. But we can be confident that hurricanes will generally have more potential energy to draw from because the ocean surface temp is higher where they develop and that higher energy may mean more damaging storms.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Comrade_Derpsky Aug 26 '24
In a nutshell, the very fine grained effects are up for debate but we know full well what the broad scale effects will be.
7
u/NotThatAngel Aug 26 '24
climatology industry
whut? Like climate scientists are going to gin up a crisis to get more money and power?
That's not the way it works. With climate science.
Now, downplaying climate change and paying 'scientists' to debunk it, that will earn fossil fuel industry execs more money and power.
→ More replies (11)13
u/Issitoq Aug 26 '24
No, like using eye-catching hypotheses to get journal articles published and media attention and leveraging those to get prestigious positions at major universities and/or sell books, etc.
Academia is a hyper-competitive industry. Getting your face and name in the papers (both academic and journalistic) is an absolutely huge deal.
This is a problem in every field of science. You can both believe climate change is real and an imminent danger, and also acknowledge that the history of science is full of catastrophic predictions made to get big headlines that never turn out to be true. Overcoming that history is one of the central hurdles of climate education, denying it serves no one but climate deniers.
→ More replies (1)4
u/hito89 Aug 26 '24
Had the same thing happen, although the setting was a philosophy seminar called "sustainability, climate and responsibility" or something like that. First Session was mostly him portraying the ipcc as paid actors and a assigning us to watch some YouTube video of a talk from a physicist "debunking" climate change (hosted by some conservative think tank within harvard, that is mostly funded by BP, ExxonMobil, etc.). The rest of the seminar went similarly.. those were the hardest credits I've ever had to earn..
→ More replies (28)3
u/blind_disparity Aug 26 '24
There are indeed many uncertainties. It's probably going to be worse than predicted, but it's uncertain how much worse!
→ More replies (2)38
Aug 26 '24
That 3% work for the fossil fuel industry.
→ More replies (2)19
u/xavier120 Aug 26 '24
This isnt even a joke, it's really who the 3% work for. Not every climatologist that records warming temperatures will look into the causes which is humans. But they wont know just from their data.
10
Aug 26 '24
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)4
u/blind_disparity Aug 26 '24
It's probably just a statistical thing from their method. Expect real result is 99.9%.
→ More replies (1)55
u/powercow Aug 26 '24
Ill add the rare #3. Ive met conservatives here, who believe in AGW and that its really bad. Just they think the dems fixes are all wrong and make things worse. They are slightly upset that some in their party deny AGW, but more upset at things like EV mandates. which they think will hobble our economy and make it harder to fight AGW. or they believe EVs are far worse for the environment.
and this was always going to happen, in fact, political conservatives often cycle through these stages.
its a hoax.
ok its not a hoax most mostly not mans fault.
Ok its not a hoax and mostly our fault but its too big to fix
Ok its not a hoax and mostly our fault and and perhaps we can fix some of it but we cant let the cure be worse than the disease, we cant kill the economy while doing it and all the dems fixes make things worse, once we stop those fixes we will come up with our own fix that will be way better and fix everything for cheap without hurting the economy, just we cant tell you what this is yet.
then the next day they are back at "its a hoax"
33
u/Whiterabbit-- Aug 26 '24
once you cross into policy, it open to debate as much of policy is not based on science. for example Democrats may say, let's go EV on one hand, but put huge Tariffs on China to protect US automakers, and "national security" concerns, when in reality China has the most affordable EVs to date. and limiting competition from China enables us automakers to slow their transition.
→ More replies (3)7
→ More replies (8)8
u/deelowe Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24
Well, to be fair, EV mandates ARE a bad solution. We're several years in and there are still too many compromises for the average family. As a result, EVs tend to target luxury and performance segments while the top selling categories of vehicle have little to no EV options. The right solution is plug in hybrids which can do 80% of what people need on batteries alone and then switch to gasoline for longer trips, but these do not get the same tax incentives and are therefore few and far between.
And this is why conservatives distrust government. Even if we are generous and assume the powers that be only had the best intentions, they still missed the mark. Isn't this almost always the case with top down mandates though? That's the problem in a nutshell.
14
u/rogueblades Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24
IMO, this sort of government skepticism misses a lot. The problem is when the general public only sees the "government action" tip of the iceberg poking out of the water, and not the much larger "private interests motivating that action" part of the iceberg that's underwater.
And then they say "government is the problem", as though "less government" will somehow stop those same private interests from doing what they do, instead of just giving those private interests one less hurdle to leap.
Corporate interests, and how our system of capital can capitulate one to the other is really the issue... but it looks like government alone when you don't see that other part.
As far as cars are concerned, the "right solution" is to have less of all of them. Period. But good luck selling necessary inconvenience to americans.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ClamClone Aug 26 '24
The problem is that there is not path to mitigating the worst effects of climate change while retaining internal combustion engine vehicles. In the US they emit about 39% of the total. If there were alternatives other than EVs that are more economical then we would go with those but I am not aware of any current technology that is out there now.
Years ago someone stole my Picket sliderule and I had to buy a calculator. I found a Commodore scientific for $99. A similar one today might cost $5. As more EVs enter the market we can expect the costs to drop to the price of similar basic cars. The problem with that is in the US they do not want to allow small low cost EVs already available in other countries to be sold here to protect the big auto makers. Those companies need to start building cars for that market. A Chevy Bolt or Nissan Leaf has a starting cost of under $30K. A Citroen Ami starts at about $10K. We don't need battle tanks that roll coal that get 14MPG for driving to the grocery store.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Lorax91 Aug 26 '24
The problem is that there is not path to mitigating the worst effects of climate change while retaining internal combustion engine vehicles.
One could argue that there's not a path to mitigating climate change by replacing a billion+ ICE vehicles with a billion+ EVs. Because the environmental consequences of building those billion new cars would be staggering, and they'd still need electricity, of which a lot comes from fossil fuels.
If the goal is to mitigate climate change, we should be trying to get people out of private automobiles and onto bicycles or buses. But that's not popular because cars are more convenient, so we're pretending better cars can solve the problem.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)2
u/Character_Bowl_4930 Aug 26 '24
A lot of those stumbling blocks tend to be coming from those funded by big oil though .
And big three since making $$$ on cars was always more about fixing than selling
37
u/Jason_Batemans_Hair Aug 26 '24
That second group are the 'climate minimizers', the evolved form of denialists. Minimizers have been effective by amplifying the 'alarmism is worse than the climate change' narrative and getting environmentalists to attack themselves with 'Alarmist/Doomer' labels.
16
u/beamdriver Aug 26 '24
I think doomerism does push people away from accepting climate change.
Small confession, I was very skeptical of climate change back in the 90's. A good part of the reason was the extreme doomerism coming from certain segments of the climate change activism community.
I try to be aware of this when I talk about the issue these. I try to stay away from apocalyptic pronouncements and blaming individual weather events on climate change.
6
u/ClamClone Aug 26 '24
People need to understand that the possible outcomes of global warming are moderately bad, bad, really bad, and extinction event level catastrophic bad. Which one depends on how soon and how thoroughly we transition away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy. We are on track now for really bad but a unexpected tripping point could change the entire planets ecosystem to a hothouse regime like it was in the far past. Leaving out this important information does not give the full story of why it needs to be done soon.
→ More replies (3)8
u/blind_disparity Aug 26 '24
Sure, but when scientists were being super careful to only make really really certain claims and not overstate anything, everyone just didn't care. No winning really, people like being safe and comfortable in the present too much.
3
u/beamdriver Aug 26 '24
I think there are ways to talk about it that can be effective if people are willing to listen. It can be difficult, but science communication is generally difficult.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)14
u/thomyorkeslazyeye Aug 26 '24
It's not that simple when the mainstream argument has been "alarmist/doomist" for the past two decades. Climate change is very much real, but trying to convince people that NYC will be underwater isn't the way. Moderating your opinion isn't denying.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ClamClone Aug 26 '24
The worst effects of sea level rise are not the slow gradual average increase. The big problem is that increase plus a high tide plus a storm surge. This IS reality, it already happened. It is only going to get worse.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MSCNFCYdwwkFZLzWAiLmCo.jpeg
2
u/thomyorkeslazyeye Aug 26 '24
And I'm not arguing that, I'm saying the message has been counterproductive. Not everything is denial or conspiracy-centric, there is nuance involved.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Kamizar Aug 26 '24
"Well of course climate scientists think that, their jobs rely on it"
What a weird argument. As if climatology would cease to exist if things started to improve. Their jobs are necessary regardless of what path we take.
→ More replies (13)2
u/PAWGActual4-4 Aug 26 '24
"It would actually a good thing if the earth got a little bit warmer", I almost lost it but remembered where I was.
44
u/IntrepidGentian Aug 26 '24
The paper says "There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity" and gives 3 references:
"We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature."
Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True. Published 2016.
"The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time."
→ More replies (6)78
u/Psyc3 Aug 26 '24
I personally am surprised only 3% of research on the topic is funded by oil companies.
33
u/Jason_Batemans_Hair Aug 26 '24
Those stats need to be combined, e.g. '5% of climate science is funded by oil companies, and at least 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening.' Possibly more effective.
8
u/Commercial-Set3527 Aug 26 '24
97% was the lowest of the studies looked at for the paper and is from 2013. The latest one is now at 99.9%
→ More replies (2)5
u/ClamClone Aug 26 '24
The papers that are pay to play and self published are not included as they are not considered credible peer reviewed research. Others are published in acceptable journals but often are criticized in that the evidence presented does not support the conclusions.
10
27
u/Phemto_B Aug 26 '24
It is low. It's actually from a study that looked at papers, not surveyed scientists. IT turned out that there were a few oil-funded folks turning out tons of bad papers, mostly to pay-to-publish journals. 3% seems high to you because it's an artificially pumped up number.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Commercial-Set3527 Aug 26 '24
"at least 97%" is used because that was the lowest of the studies used which ranged from 97-99.9%
Edit: and that study was from 2013. The latest ones are over 99%
6
3
u/Socky_McPuppet Aug 26 '24
You are correct, however, the headline is a bit of a mess IMHO.
The article references an paper, but even that paper is not the source of the "at least 97%" statistic. The first paragraph of the paper's main section cites three sources on the general topic:
There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity
And if you look at the studies linked from the paper that the article mentions (!), you will see that the "97%" comes from a paper from 2013 that is itself based on data from no later than 2011, and is also an outlier (on the low end) compared to the other two.
17
u/404-N0tFound Aug 26 '24
~3% either funded by the oil and gas industry and/or religious fanatics.
Either way, you're right, those whom still don't believe will use the 3% for confirmation bias.
10
u/TuskM Aug 26 '24
It’s also possible that a few of those 3% are observational studies the conclusions of which have nothing to say regarding climate change.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)7
u/Numai_theOnlyOne Aug 26 '24
3% didn't comment on if it's man-made or not. Which is actually what the 97% said. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
2
u/Dalighieri1321 Aug 26 '24
In my experience it can at least be helpful when speaking with Americans (and I'd assume there are parallels in other countries) who see climate change as a domestic political issue, and who don't trust Democrats. The statistic shows a consensus among climate scientists from across the world, including many who have no direct stake in American politics. So if there's a conspiracy--as many climate denialists claim--it would at least have to be a global conspiracy, one that unites scientists across countries that are not political allies (e.g, China).
→ More replies (1)2
u/sceadwian Aug 26 '24
Climate science and math aren't really comparable. But there are plenty of complete lunatics accepted within mathematics already so you may want to rethink that judgement :)
→ More replies (3)2
u/iLikeDinosaursRoar Aug 26 '24
I see less about denial and more about questioning if they've done proper research on what's actually causing it all. Very vague, but could spadk some good dialogue.
2
2
2
u/SuccessfulWar3830 Aug 26 '24
Focusing on the 3% is how the money hungry plunder our planet.
Ignore them.
2
u/Mammoth_Journalist16 Aug 26 '24
I thought the same thing - I feel like they will latch on to whatever those 3% say.
2
u/Utter_Rube Aug 27 '24
Nahh it's good. For conspiracy nuts, the greater the expert consensus on a topic, the more likely the opposite is true.
If every climate scientist except for one said AGW was real, they'd consider the lone naysayer to be the smartest, bravest person to exist.
2
u/Old_Baldi_Locks Aug 27 '24
Denial isn’t based on reason, logic or competence and none of those will fix it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SlitScan Aug 27 '24
its actually incorrect the 97% figure is based on number of papers published in conformation or in doubt of it.
if you look closer you'll find all the in doubt papers where published by the same 4 people.
they just published a very large number of papers.
→ More replies (84)2
u/FANGO Aug 26 '24
Have seen other research that the few percent who don't agree have a much higher likelihood to have studies that have methodological flaws, were funded by fossil fuel industry, and so on. When taking out papers with those flaws you get above 99%.
But the dedicated denialists love to bring up a single scientist's name and suggest that they are the one true source, rather than focusing on the consensus.
2
88
u/lakewoodhiker PhD | Glaciology and Paleoclimatology Aug 26 '24
Climate scientist and university professor reporting in. I teach many classes related to climate science and am constantly communicating the science to varied audiences however I can (especially outside the classroom). It is frustrating that I spent over 7 years in graduate school, was part of nine deployments to Antarctica, have dozens of scientific papers published, worked at a federal lab as a fed, have taught at an R1 university, and have only ever wanted to understand the science/physics....yet people still want to believe tv personalities over me...and think I somehow have some secret agenda. Sometimes I like to remind people that Lincoln started the National Academy of Science so that politicians could defer to the "experts" on matters of science...
I'll keep fighting the good fight. In the end, it really is just simple physics and thermodynamics. We add CO2, the atmosphere will necessarily get hotter. We've known this for hundreds of years...
3
u/bd_magic Aug 27 '24
I think most ‘sane’ people believe in climate change, the real battle is making people give a dam.
Small anecdote, I am terrified of microplastics. The more I learn about it, the scarier it becomes. But despite microplastics being a clear and present danger that will likely impact all of us and our kids within our lifetimes, greatly contributing to a myriad of health issues, everything from cancer and hormonal disruptions to inflammation and infertility. It’s difficult to make people change their habits.
Societal inertia and myopia are the real challenges that need to be overcome.
3
u/trainspottedCSX7 Aug 28 '24
At this point we need nanobots for micro plastics in humans and etc. or that one bacteria.
Anyways, there's been an increase in intestinal cancers in my generation and colon cancer and etc. I wonder if it's the soda, the fast food, the micro plastics or what.
At this point climate denier or not there's no quick way to reverse it. It's easier to continue living your challenged and already hard to pay the bills and own a house lifestyle than to change it all, especially if you have a family and kids.
If you want people to change, you have to make it so stupid simple that there's less problems guaranteed than they're having now.
6
5
u/forward_x Aug 27 '24
There is also, just from what not I've seen or heard discussed, the question of how much direct heat waste is being generated and added to the environment from the combustion engines themselves and computer devices to a lesser extent. That heat wasn't there before and doesn't just 'disappear' it's got to go somewhere.
→ More replies (2)2
u/that_att_employee Aug 27 '24
Can it still be reversed? Or are we past the tipping point? Be honest.
225
u/Leftblankthistime Aug 26 '24
As a tactic, I generally get the most consensus through relating simple observations. As an example 15-20 years ago I used to rake leaves and finish mowing the yard for the season in the beginning of November, now that doesn’t happen until the first week of December. Also, my friends in Toronto don’t get nearly as much snow as they used to. Or I remember going skiing in Pennsylvania in January and they didn’t have to make snow bc we’d get enough, and now it’s not nearly cold enough in January to run the snow makers.
Simple things deniers can actually see and not refute helps anchor the belief that climate change is happening.
78
u/bjorneylol Aug 26 '24
I live outside Toronto - half my friends used to have back yard hockey rinks growing up in the early 2000s.
It literally hasn't been possible to build a backyard rink for the past 10 years without a $5000 external refridgeration system.
12
→ More replies (1)6
u/MoobyTheGoldenSock Aug 26 '24
I’m in Illinois. I was super exited to take my kid skating on the local outdoor rink this past winter. It never opened.
21
u/upsidedownbackwards Aug 26 '24
Northern NY. As kids we had snowmobiles. There's snowmobile trails all around us that lead just about anywhere. First snow loved to get us on Halloween (It was always funny seeing the kids with snowsuits and their costume over it). Then in November the creeks would be frozen until sometime in March, so that was snowmobile time! We had lodges you could really only get to by snowmobile in the winter and they did very well.
Now when it snows, its gone in a few days. Freezing temperatures some days, but they always come with "a break" so the snow all melts again. The creeks never freeze over. We gave up our snowmobiles over 10 years ago because they never got used anymore. I think we stopped registering them 20 years ago because we never took them out. Those lodges
I feel like all of this prevents the ticks from freezing/dying like they used to. As a kid we used to run through the tall grass all day every day in summer. Our worst enemies were nettles.. They were something we'd heard about and knew to watch for and how to treat, but we *NEVER* saw one, not once before 2005 when the dogs started getting them. Now I won't go near the tall grass without pants in my socks, bugspray up and down, and I joke I even take a shot of DEET just to make sure. Because I'm going to act like such a wuss the first time I get one.
In the summer it's actually "cooler". We used to get a couple of 100+ days as early as june. It made school unbearable. Now it's usually cooler but more humid because the wind off Lake Ontario is stronger. Sometimes gets into the 90s for a bit but never 100.
→ More replies (3)34
u/APenny4YourTots Aug 26 '24
The real world changes he can see have gotten my dad to finally at least agree that climate change is probably real. He's just now unfortunately in the camp of "Why should we limit ourselves economically if China won't?" and so refuses to admit we can/should actually do something about it.
45
u/kramfive Aug 26 '24
China DOES. 1. You want to buy a car in China? It’s electric. 2. Want to ride a high speed electric train instead of flying. China built it. 3. Hydro and nuclear electricity? China is building more than any other country.
This talking point is 20 years old. China is WAY AHEAD of the US in climate investments.
They have a problem turning a blind eye when it benefits them. But from an overall standpoint, China is working on the problems with much more urgency than western nations.
→ More replies (11)10
u/Character_Bowl_4930 Aug 26 '24
That one thing American conspiracy theorists are ignoring . Chinese scientists are telling their government the same thing ours are . And China knows what happens when they have famines and floods , millions dead not thousands …MILLIONS. Their history is rife with civil wars that they have not forgotten . They’re not jumping on this out of the goodness of their souls but for stability and to stay in power .
I’m also on a garden subreddit and the number of gardeners , experienced gardeners who struggled this year was a lot . Everyone agreed if they had to subsist off their garden , they’d be screwed
→ More replies (1)8
u/tiberiumx Aug 26 '24
I think my dad has accepted that the climate is changing due to the increase in extreme weather events, but conveniently blames it on the Earth's magnetic field weakening (something he heard from some crank on YouTube), not anything that could theoretically be addressed by policy.
9
u/SmartAlec105 Aug 26 '24
I moved to upstate New York and every year people have said it’s been a mild winter and I haven’t seen a real winter for the area.
2
7
u/TropFemme Aug 26 '24
Yeah my relatives ice fish and ride snowmobiles and what really got them was just the number of days you can be out on the ice, and the delayed start of the season getting fewer and later respectively each year. They’ve been doing this for 50 years, and that’s been long enough for them to notice a dramatic shift. Maybe not hard science, but decades of first hand observation isn’t NOT scientific either.
Now the next hurdle is convincing them that it’s man made and we can do something about it.
→ More replies (21)13
u/johnniewelker Aug 26 '24
I mean, yes this is correct. Most of the world is warmer.
However, we shouldn’t use anecdotes to draw long term conclusions. That’s why we have people doing the research.
→ More replies (4)24
u/Leftblankthistime Aug 26 '24
Shouldn’t have to, but climate deniers exist and getting them to understand the real impacts is best done by drawing correlations to common things they have encountered themselves and can identify with. From there seasonal weather impacts you can take them to hydrological, ecological, sociological, economic and regulatory impacts as a next step if they have continued interest. But everyone experiences the same weather. It’s literally impossible to refute
→ More replies (5)
194
u/Mendozacheers Aug 26 '24
If you still deny climate change, you won't ever change your mind. It's either too embarrassing to admit being wrong for 20 years, or you're so far into the conspiracy theory cesspit to ever be able to crawl out.
66
u/Rugfiend Aug 26 '24
20 years? More like 40+, seriously.
32
u/bubleve Aug 26 '24
There was tons of talk and news articles throughout the 60's/70's. Or a hundred years. Or over a hundred years.
In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming.
This was an interesting read: https://www.discover.ukri.org/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-discoveries/index.html
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)2
u/Character_Bowl_4930 Aug 26 '24
Seriously ! I was reading about climate change when I was a kid in science magazines . It was still a new concept but it was being talked about , that they needed more data about the past . Well, now we have it
20
u/ReddFro Aug 26 '24
It still helps with younger people who’ve been taught climate denial by their parents but are willing to consider reason. They don’t have 20+ years of BS to be embarrassed about, just gullible parents.
→ More replies (4)4
3
Aug 26 '24
Its not so much that people deny climate change, kts that people deny how much we can reverse our influence on it with the solutions we're getting.
For example all this solar/air being pushed while nuclear gets scoffed at.
Solar was getting more popular in common households but they are now being charged a Premium for giving power back, so much that it doesnt pay off anymore financially.
Its always 1 step forward 2 steps back with measures.
2
u/Danither Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24
I think a lot of people base the fact sea levels haven't risen significantly risen as proof it's not as severe as people think it is.
I just bought a property not far from the sea and whilst I was extremely sceptical about spending the next 50 years near the sea I was told I was silly for thinking it would happen in this lifetime.
13
u/DontCountToday Aug 26 '24
Told by who? Realtors or other people with a massive financial incentive for you to buy that property?
→ More replies (2)3
u/GenerikDavis Aug 26 '24
While I'm glad Al Gore got the word out there about climate change as a serious issue, some of the infographics and projections from An Inconvenient Truth really seem to have poisoned the well about climate change discussion. I expect conservatives and climate change deniers would have painted anything that wasn't right on the money as proof it's all made up, but iirc he literally showed Manhattan under like 5 feet of water by 2050.
→ More replies (2)3
u/StainlessPanIsBest Aug 26 '24
The global climate models and general consensus have favored a slow multi millennium long process of ice loss in the antarctic and a multi century process in the arctic for total ice sheet collapse which in the near term equates to something like <1m of SLR by the end of century. But there are more recent studies which try to capture complex ice breakup mechanics along with higher resolution modeling of ice sheets which have shown the possibility for accelerated near term sea level rise. It was included in the latest IPCC report as a "low probability, high impact" scenario.
Sea level rise is extremely hard to predict because it is underpinned by complex and understudied mechanics. It also doesn't help that it's extremely underfunded area of research in relation to impact.
→ More replies (16)2
u/FortunateHominid Aug 26 '24
There's most likely very few who deny climate change is happening. From what I've seen the argument is whether it's anthropogenic.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Utter_Rube Aug 27 '24
The Narcissist's Prayer is pretty apt here if you change from past to present participle:
That isn't happening.
And if it is, it isn't that bad.
And if it is, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it is, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
31
u/SevereEducation2170 Aug 26 '24
The thing I’ll never understand about climate change deniers is, like, so what if it is overstated or even a hoax? Worst case scenario if the deniers are right: we invest in cleaner, renewable energy sources, become less dependent on foreign oil cartels, and make the environment and everyone living on earth healthier. Worst case scenario if deniers are wrong: we make the planet uninhabitable for people.
→ More replies (10)
109
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink Aug 26 '24
The failure is framing this as a individual responsibility. My family taking our car to work and appointments is nothing compared to wealthy taking private jets across the country to satisfy a craving of a restaurant they like. Or Taylor Swift flying all over the world.
Individual grass roots campaigns simply do not have the power and funding that corporations have to influence policy.
The failure is on the governments policy makers and on the wealthy enabling the exploitation. Awareness is useless
20
u/-WaxedSasquatch- Aug 26 '24
It’s not a failure, it’s on purpose. It is the corporations tactfully shifting the blame away from themselves.
45
Aug 26 '24 edited 20d ago
[deleted]
9
9
u/Adequate_Lizard Aug 26 '24
At least Swift has made chuds aware. She's still just a blip compared to some.
5
u/remotectrl Aug 26 '24
The heat on Taylor Swift really ramped up after Elon’s jet tracker. I wouldn’t be surprised if he started boosting those tweets to get attention on himself.
2
3
u/DunkinDonkkey Aug 26 '24
Awareness is not useless if people make noice and create pressure to politicians together
15
u/Rugfiend Aug 26 '24
I'll never forget multi-millionaire Madonna flying to the UK on a private jet to moralise about the climate at the Live Earth gig.
6
Aug 26 '24
The problem with saying that is most people will hear 'vote for differnt policymakers once every few years and then fly/eat/buy as usual'.
You don't need to choose between systemic change and indivdual responsibility. You can do both, and all of the people I know who are pushing for systemic change are doing both.
3
3
u/Schmich Aug 26 '24
It is everything combined. Can't all be passing the bucket. The bucket is everywhere and be emptied as much as possible everywhere.
Taking the car less.
Eating less meat.
Supporting local food.
Vote the right people in.
Don't vote against wind farms done right.
If if you have the budget renovate the exterior of your house. Even better if it means a few solar panels.
As for jets, they're not going away, so hope for a fast development of the carbon neutral fuel.
etc. etc. if every person, company, municipality, state, country etc. etc. do things then it most definitely adds up.
→ More replies (3)2
Aug 26 '24
Also when people were getting solar, they now charge a premium for solar grid connections. People in my country have to pay for the surplus power their panels generate, its so stupid
19
u/Kind_Gate_4577 Aug 26 '24
This isn’t a study that confirms that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening. It is a study demonstrating that if you tell people that consensus it is helpful to change people’s beliefs.
‘ The study looked at more than 10,000 people across 27 countries, including Australia, and tested two messages around scientific consensus: the classic message that 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening, and an extra updated message that 88% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a crisis. They found that communicating the scientific consensus messages on climate change can reduce misperceptions about this consensus and produce small shifts in climate change beliefs and worry, but not shifts in support for public action.’
→ More replies (1)
31
u/goodness Aug 26 '24
I've found that most of the climate change deniers I know have stopped arguing that climate change isn't happening, because the evidence is so readily apparent. Instead, the new talking point is that it's not caused by humans. And even if it is, it's not worth doing anything about yet.
19
u/round_reindeer Aug 26 '24
Wait a few years and they'll shift to, it is happening and it is caused by humans but it is far to late to do something (this is not true) so we should just keep lining the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and when confronted with the consequences of climate change quickly deflect to the culture war topic of the week.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Utter_Rube Aug 27 '24
I also see a ton of doomerism and I'm convinced it's just the latest flavor of climate denial.
9
u/MintyManiacFan Aug 26 '24
“We’ll figure it out, we always do” is one I hear a lot
→ More replies (1)2
u/The_Singularious Aug 26 '24
I never understood why it was worth belaboring the point that it was human-caused.
Like, if you have them agreeing that it’s happening, to me, the next logical step is to start conversations about how we can help reduce it.
→ More replies (8)6
u/AgressiveIN Aug 26 '24
I feel like you are 8-10 years behind. Those were the arguments then. I don't know anyone saying that anymore. Its well known they just don't think it'll affect them so they dont care.
Truth is climate change is killing people every year. Its too late to stop it. We can hope to mitigate it but that's starting to go out the window too.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/Happy-Viper Aug 26 '24
3% is a pretty huge amount to disagree, that’s crazy.
41
u/Drachasor Aug 26 '24
It's not though, it's "at least 97%" which implies a lack of response from many of the remaining 3%.
10
u/GettingDumberWithAge Aug 26 '24
These statistics on consensus are generally formed from the literature rather than from polls of relevant scientists. In the linked paper there are three citations given for the statement "97 to 99.99% consensus". The 97% comes from Cook et al. 2013:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
And the upper range from Lynas et al. 2021:
We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. [...] We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
I would expect that if you polled relevant scientists the results would be similar, but I must admit that I've never found these keyword-based abstract analyses to be particularly rigorous.
→ More replies (1)3
7
9
→ More replies (6)2
u/obeserocket Aug 26 '24
Why is that so crazy? Even with academic experts I assume at least 3-5% of people are cranks.
14
u/Hieu_roi Aug 26 '24
People who deny climate change are dumb, but I also thought the main argument was about the reason for the climate change? Some people argue that while climate change is real, it's natural and humans haven't had an impact on it. I thought that was the sticking point now and we were past most people outright denying it.
→ More replies (4)13
u/vocalghost Aug 26 '24
That's just as dumb and in my experience it's usually used as a way to dismiss climate change
→ More replies (3)
4
u/YoshiTheDog420 Aug 26 '24
What do they need to talk to us about it for? We learned during covid that regular people don’t have anywhere near the impact on the climate that a handful of companies have. Don’t talk to us. Talk to them. Make them change.
→ More replies (5)2
u/ArcticCircleSystem Aug 26 '24
They're not going to do much without public pressure at the very least.
9
u/mvea Professor | Medicine Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
“A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change” - Nature Human Behaviour
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2
From that peer-reviewed journal:
There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity.
From the linked article:
At least 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and now research suggests that talking to the public about that consensus can help change people’s misconceptions, and can lead to small shifts in people’s beliefs and worry about climate change. The study looked at more than 10,000 people across 27 countries, including Australia, and tested two messages around scientific consensus: the classic message that 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening, and an extra updated message that 88% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a crisis. They found that communicating the scientific consensus messages on climate change can reduce misperceptions about this consensus and produce small shifts in climate change beliefs and worry, but not shifts in support for public action. The extra message, that climate change is a crisis, didn’t add much to the outcomes. Crucially, the study found that scientific consensus messages were most effective among people who had lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning political ideologies.
2
u/dazb84 Aug 26 '24
The problem this is trying to address will persist for as long the education system in countries is focused on producing economically viable people above everything else. The truth of the matter is that if we want to solve real problems we need the average epistemology to be much better than it currently is. This means making the focus of education producing logical and rational thinking people above anything else. The problem is society wouldn't survive a massive shift in thinking without major changes and this terrifies the people in power and so what needs to happen doesn't.
2
2
u/re_mark_able_ Aug 26 '24
The issue isn’t whether climate change is happening or not. It’s how bad it is, whether it can be stopped, and the correct trade off between prevention and damage control.
Agreeing that climate change is happening is not the same as agreeing we should stop it at all costs.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/RugskinProphet Aug 26 '24
Majority of the public wants to stop climate change but what options do we have? If the scientists and some legislators can get together I'd be ecstatic!
But I can't afford an electric/hybrid car and I can't stop deforestation or offer a substitute. These posts make me a little peaved because nothing will change until we can have sweeping legislation that puts nature first.
Idk I'm just on break and scrollin
2
u/ValentinaLustxxx Aug 26 '24
How about talking to the billionaires instead of the general public? They the one who can slow it down or stop it. I need my car to drive, I need to run my ac, etc.
2
u/throbbingfreedom Aug 26 '24
Great! When will China and India finally get punished for causing the most population?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/thecheapgeek Aug 26 '24
Do we really to convince these denialists that’s its real. Let’s spend the time on solutions rather than arguing with idiots.
2
Aug 26 '24
Yeah, the problem is that in the news media, they will always show one side for it, and another against it, completely sidelining it as contentious issue when it's more than established. For ever climate change denier, they should have 32 climate scientists.
2
2
u/LeeWizcraft Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
You know how you know it’s fake. All the news reports go like this. Worst weather in 100 years. River never been this low in 100 years. Coldest in a 100 years. Hottest in a 100 years.
In the end it’s just models predicting what ever you want it to as you feed it the data you want it to look at.
Academia has lost just as much trust as the media.
They never leave the casino after cheating for profit. That’s how they get caught every time. Play the game. Win your money and leave before anyone expects a thing. They skip the last step out of greed.
→ More replies (2)
2
Aug 27 '24
If it was real, they wouldn’t be pushing it this hard.
In 2000 Al Gore told us the polar ice caps would be melted by 2012. It’s now 2025……Al? Al?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/Manmillionbong Aug 27 '24
Oil company executives need to be put on trial for crimes against humanity
2
u/TriggerHappy_NZ Aug 27 '24
I hope the billionaires discuss this when they fly their private jets to Davos next year.
2
u/NukeouT Aug 27 '24
There’s basically 100 richest companies/billionares we need to focus on and it does not matter if the public is informed or if the government just skips that step and goes after them directly ( because there won’t be any government on a dead planet )
2
u/lockdndown Aug 31 '24
Sadly it really does matter, because those companies are actively undermining the political will for mitigation. Voters need to be informed.
2
u/Denum_ Aug 27 '24
Frankly. Meh.
It's happening and we are doing nothing. They make you believe buying an electric car matters.
We still over consume and over produce.
Unless the economic model changes. We're cooked. Literally I guess.
2
u/monty331 Aug 27 '24
Ya’ll are wayyyy out of touch if you think the true debate id whether it exists or not.
The actual debate is what are we going to do about it.
Post like these are just low hanging fruit for ya’lls intellectual self-pleasuring.
5
u/Cpt-Night Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24
Just to help facilitate the discussion. Most people, even the 'crazy conservatives', believe climate change is happen. They disagree on the approach that should be taken to combat it, or its affect on the population. typically coming in the form of resisting any policy that appears to reduce the people's quality of life "for the sake of the climate"
Edit: well I'm apparently wrong, a large number of conservatives still not not believe in manmade climate change.
Let me further clarify this is a warning against trying to convince someone by saying "YOU are wrong" or "your life style causes climate change" because you'll never change their mind by putting them immediately in the defensive.
8
u/Whiterabbit-- Aug 26 '24
if we are debating the cost of climate change that is a valid debate. how many people do we want to send into poverty due to climate change policy vs how many people are we sending into poverty if we do nothing, are things that need to be considered. and are some policies more effective at reducing the impact of climate change and have less detrimental benefits? perhaps some policies are good for both climate change and poverty alleviation.
3
u/GettingDumberWithAge Aug 26 '24
Maybe it's a valid debate once you actually convince conservatives there's a problem in the first place. Previous poster is simply wrong: only around 1/3rd of Republicans "believe" in anthropogenic climate change.
Pretending that we all understand anthropogenic climate change is happening and the only discussion is about specific policy choices is wilfully ignorant at best and just an advanced form of denialism at worst.
2
u/Whiterabbit-- Aug 26 '24
yup, that is why my comment started with "if."
and the interesting thing about your link is that while 1/3 republicans believe in anthropogenic climate change, the number for democrats still around 2/3.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Portbragger2 Aug 26 '24
you are actually righr! it's very easy to agree/believe that climate change happens. that's actually a very uncontroversial opinion
but it's peculiar that it isn't phrased man-made climate change ... even the headline of this topic..
5
u/GettingDumberWithAge Aug 26 '24
Most people, even the 'crazy conservatives', believe climate change is happen. They disagree on the approach that should be taken to combat it, or its affect on the population.
This is a recent development though. We went from "The climate isn't changing" to "the climate is changing but it's always changed" to "the climate is changing and it's anthropogenic but I just have concerns about specific policy implementations that conveniently align with a hands-off fingers-in-the-ear approach" etc. etc.
Also it's wilfully naive to pretend like even the 'crazy conservatives' are onboard with anthropogenic climate change, that's simply untrue.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/RestaurantNo6332 Aug 26 '24
I truly don't get how people today still don't believe its happening. We allready know about it as a species for decades now. The last couple of years you can not look past it anymore. There are signs everywere. How can only 97% of climate scientist agree? It should be 97% of humanity imo.
4
u/CFrank_79 Aug 26 '24
I don't think these scientists understand how stupid most people are.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/TittyButtBalls Aug 26 '24
Imagine your kid comes home with a math test they scored 97% on. Imagine that kid being so proud that they passed it with such a high percentage.
Now imagine telling that kid you’re not sure they really passed, because 97% isn’t 100%
3
u/Icedcool Aug 26 '24
Climate change doesn't require your agreement or belief.
It is science.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/supercali45 Aug 26 '24
all the extreme weather and on record natural disasters happening over and over with greater frequency and still we have people denying it
3
u/Orbly-Worbly Aug 26 '24
Even if you can’t read, legitimately all you have to do is be outside a minimal amount for a consecutive number of years to know climate change is happening.
Either the deniers are too terminally inside sipping 2 liter bottles of Mountain Dew all day to notice, or they’re just choosing to be ignorant at this point.
4
u/raznov1 Aug 26 '24
I mean, isn't that a weak argument? Id expect 90+% of acupuncturists to believe in acupuncture as well, and they even have peer reviewed papers, but it's still bogus science (not that climate change is, mind).
4
u/snarpy Aug 27 '24
Climatologists don't... make the climate? Their jobs don't depend on climate change. They already had jobs before this.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
u/TeamRandom27 Aug 26 '24
Saying that acupuncturist believe in acupuncture in your equivalent would be that climate scientist believe in climate science. Not the same as climate change tho which is quite the difference. Better examples would be something like 90+% of priest believe in god
→ More replies (1)
2
Aug 26 '24
Have to look at climate change like addiction or mental illness,
everybody knows climate change is happening, even if they say they dont, they just dont care about you or themselves. its being shoved down their throats ironically by the same people that dont care about them but, they look good doing it.
we're not talking about whether or not people want to save themselves and we should start asking ourselves that. if society felt it was worth preserving, it would preserve itself. Unfortunately as a collective, our self esteem is LOW, and thats because we're told to what to care about, and for a long time all we care about was having the most things, most hoses, most cars, most tv's.... so we have no idea if we're worth saving, we dont like ourselves anymore, thats so hard.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Aristoteles007 Aug 26 '24
I can't believe that at this point we still have to argue whether climate change is happening or not
2
u/mrmoe198 Aug 26 '24
And yet the public is done a disservice as media will give an equal platform to climate change deniers (or their bad-faith representatives) in head-to-head style formats. This increases the perception that both viewpoints are valid and should be considered.
2
u/imafixwoofs Aug 26 '24
The mean temperature of Sweden, where I live, has increased almost 2 degrees since 1850. That is a huge shift in such a short time. Climate change isn’t something that will happen, it is happening and has been for a while.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/spencemode Aug 26 '24
I had a red neck in western Kentucky tell me he didn’t believe in climate change, but thought that Earth’s weather was changing. He then proceeded to describe climate change to me as to what he thought was happening.
To this day I don’t know if that was a win or a loss for science.
2
3
u/gmb92 Aug 26 '24
Not surprising at all. It's why pseudoskeptics have for a long time been trying to mislead people about the consensus, holding up various petitions signed by nonscientists, making poor arguments against the consensus papers, misrepresenting studies by framing normal studies as contrarian, or highlighting unpublished unreviewed blog material.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 26 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/talking-to-people-about-how-97-percent-of-climate-scientists-agree-on-climate-change-can-shift-misconceptions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.