"97% of Climate Scientists Agree Climate Change is Real." YET . . . .

[Skwim]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.

The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

 

[Altfish]

It's is just like abortion and creationism. All down to party lines, very sad.

 

[BSM1]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I dont think it's any one reason. For some it's a mistrust of science institutions in general. Especially those religious folks of a particular belief set already in conflict with sciences. For other it's apathy and greed turned into denialism which I very much believe is the case for Trump. Environmentalism is not lucrative for him. For some it's partisan politics. For some it's conspiracy theorism. And many more reasons besides.

 

[Yerda]

It's is just like abortion and creationism. All down to party lines, very sad.

Exactly this.

 

[Father Heathen]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

Those democrats and "tree-huggers" agree with the 97% of climate scientists, so wouldn't the gullible ones be the 47% who don't believe?

 

[Jumi]

Funny enough, Trump admin came out saying that the world is going to be a few degrees(K) warmer in some decades, but the US at least shouldn't do anything. I guess they're not sure what they give out though...

7-Degree Global Temperature Rise Is Inevitable, Trump Administration Presumes (and Shrugs It Off)

 

[Quetzal]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

You will have to forgive them. You see, they tend to recognize and put stock into subject matter experts. Getting those experts to agree is a bit tough. So when you have one of those rare times when those experts have an overwhelming majority saying "Yeah, we should look into this", they take it a face value to investigate. In comparison to the alternative which is basically... "NU-UHHH!"

 

[Yerda]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

If we're being completely honest those groups indulge in motivated reasoning too. Partisanship.

However, the science stacks up completely in favour of those with the tree-hugging bias.

 

[onlytruth]

three kinds of lie; lies, damn lies and statisticts

 

[Father Heathen]

I dont think it's any one reason. For some it's a mistrust of science institutions in general. Especially those religious folks of a particular belief set already in conflict with sciences. For other it's apathy and greed turned into denialism which I very much believe is the case for Trump. Environmentalism is not lucrative for him. For some it's partisan politics. For some it's conspiracy theorism. And many more reasons besides.

Reducing pollution means increasing expenses, so the industries lobby politicians to fight legislation that would curtail emissions. These politicians in turn convince their dopey constituents that it's all just some vast, convoluted conspiracy (but how do they get the entire international scientific community to collaborate on a hoax that nobody has anything to gain from? But of course yokels don't bother themselves with such questions.) Their voter base tends to be religious and thus scientifically illiterate; i.e. evolution deniers and climate change deniers are cut from the same cloth.

 

[Nakosis]

​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

Shouldn't have made it a political issue.

 

[Father Heathen]

Shouldn't have made it a political issue.

Who do you think is responsible for trying to politicize science?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Reducing pollution means increase expenses, so the industries lobby politicians to fight legislation that would curtail emissions.

Agree completely.

These politicians in turn convince their dopey constituents that it's all just some vast, convoluted conspiracy (but how do they get the entire international community to collaborate on a hoax that nobody has anything to gain from? But of course yokels don't bother themselves with such questions.) Their voter base tends to be religious and thus scientifically illiterate; i.e. evolution deniers and climate change deniers are cut from the same cloth.

This part I think is a bit harsh. Firstly a good sum of the conspiracy variety I meet aren't religious, as there has been a big spike of corporatist atheists in the right which tend to be the sort I think of when climate conspiracy come up. (Alt right specifically which tends to be less religious.)

Secondly because the highest scientific literacy rate is among a religious demographic, specifically Hindu.
US has a unique problem with anti evolution not seen in the majority of Christian populations in other nations. And while I don't deny that I think there is a huge problem with scientific literacy there, I don't think it's a problem with being religious full stop.

 

[Nakosis]

Who do you think is responsible for trying to politicize science?

Looks like NGOs

Who Politicized The Environment And Climate Change?

 

[Quetzal]

Agree completely.

This part I think is a bit harsh. Firstly a good sum of the conspiracy variety I meet aren't religious, as there has been a big spike of corporatist atheists in the right which tend to be the sort I think of when climate conspiracy come up. (Alt right specifically which tends to be less religious.)

Secondly because the highest scientific literacy rate is among a religious demographic, specifically Hindu.
US has a unique problem with anti evolution not seen in the majority of Christian populations in other nations. And while I don't deny that I think there is a huge problem with scientific literacy there, I don't think it's a problem with being religious full stop.

What throws me is the complete lack of an alternative explanation. It really boils down to one of two possibilities:

1. The data is correct but it simply doesn't matter because I said so.
2. The data is fake and it doesn't matter because I said so.

I have a nice shiny nickel for anyone who does not agree with the consensus to provide empirical evidence to counter what is already there. I have a suspicion I might be waiting for a bit.

 

[Father Heathen]

Agree completely.

This part I think is a bit harsh. Firstly a good sum of the conspiracy variety I meet aren't religious, as there has been a big spike of corporatist atheists in the right which tend to be the sort I think of when climate conspiracy come up. (Alt right specifically which tends to be less religious.)

Secondly because the highest scientific literacy rate is among a religious demographic, specifically Hindu.
US has a unique problem with anti evolution not seen in the majority of Christian populations in other nations. And while I don't deny that I think there is a huge problem with scientific literacy there, I don't think it's a problem with being religious full stop.

I should've specified that by "religious" I meant the evangelicals/fundamentalists who make a large portion of the republican base. I admit that how I worded it does seem like an unfair generalization.

 

[Skwim]

Shouldn't have made it a political issue.

Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing for Republicans, isn't it.


.

 

[Cacotopia]

We will be the most informed and intelligent species on the planet to allow it's own destruction through willful ignorance.

And when it does go down, I can't help but say we got the punishment by extinction we will so rightfully deserve.

 

[Cacotopia]

Sometimes I just hope there is a global natural disaster that wipes us out, then it wouldn't be our fault that we went extinct.