You do realize that there was a huge, concerted effort to avoid ozone depletion, and that it was largely successful–right? The science was right on both the effect and the way to avoid the problem.
Unfortunately, fixing climate change will require more than just changing the propellant on your hair spray and the refrigerant on your A/C.
I don’t know where the OP lives, but where I am, in the midwest, how hot the summers get doesn’t play into it. The most common thing I hear climate change deniers “citing” is how effin cold it gets in winter. Every time we hit a week of 0 degrees (F) plus or minus a few degrees, I’ll hear someone claiming that climate change/global warming is a load of crap, multiple times a day until it starts getting a little warmer out.
It’s a classic example of ‘there’s no such thing as global warming because it’s cold, today, where I am’.
A lot of people don’t know the difference between [local] weather and [global] climate.
I remember a time when a customer was saying exactly that to me. While he was talking I looked up the weather in some other countries. I wish I had the nerve to ask him what he thinks about the fact that, while it’s really cold today, Australia just had their 10th consecutive 100+ day. His argument would entirely fall apart. But I just let him yammer on for a minute and excused myself.
Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? You argue with someone on a point, and as soon as you press on one thing they essentially change the subject, bringing up some other piece of invalid or irrelevant evidence.
The thing is, the typical case is that people Gish Gallop inside their own heads. As soon as they are presented with some fact or statement that conflicts with their beliefs, they simply move on to something else. They aren’t assembling a coherent case for something using all the best evidence available. They’ve already made up their minds and they are using the last three things they heard to support the belief. And then move on if they experience a contradiction.
I experienced this with my dad on the subject of climate change. He said that volcanoes were responsible for most greenhouse gases. I knew that was a falsehood long trotted out by denialists, and that he didn’t come up with it, but in any case I looked up a site (from the USGS) that clearly showed that volcanoes are a negligible contribution. And it just didn’t sink in, at all. It’s like solost’s comment about the robots from Westworld. Just completely oblivious when presented with good data. He had already moved on mentally to something else, and didn’t show the slightest sign of the new data altering his beliefs. I’m not expecting some dramatic turnaround, but I’d hope that it would put a tiny chink in the armor.
So it wouldn’t matter even if they did perceive things getting hotter. They would simply ignore it, deny it was happening, deny that it has any applicability here, or whatever.
I dunno, I feel like there’s a middle group that can be persuaded if they can see/hear/feel a thing for themselves, but are reluctant to accept experts’ conclusions if they can’t. I don’t think the climate change that has occurred so far is something you can really feel, given how much day-to-day/place-to-place temperature fluctuation there is. There are some things that make easy visuals, like melting glaciers, but not a lot of people have those in their backyards. Accepting the truth of what’s happening requires us to put on our big kid pants and accept the limits of our own individual perceptions.
I mentioned up thread something about climate change deniers doubling down on their position because of the really cold winters. I feel like a lot of them were thrown off their game over the last winter. When the subject would come up, they couldn’t fall back on their standard ‘it’s cold so climate change is fake’ line when it’s the dead of winter but there’s no snow on the ground and it’s 40f.
The graphic underscores the industrial nature of global climate change today and negates some circulating claims that contemporary global warming is a feature of the earth’s natural warming cycles.
In essence, the graph shows about 1.3 degrees Celsius of the increase in temperature can be attributed to human activity since 1850.
Of course, the ozone layer issue was dealt with, but that was because Fox News and other sources were not there to misinform many.
The reality was that before the 80s the global warming issue was found back then to be a problem already.
As it turns out, that same decade during which this climate transition started to take place was also when scientists, political leaders, and industry executives knew everything they needed to know about global warming, and failed to act—a story Nathaniel Rich details with chilling lucidity in Losing Earth: A Recent History. “Nearly everything we understand about global warming was understood in 1979,” Rich writes. “It was, if anything, better understood.”
In essence, you need to learn what has been known for decades already, right wing media and internet “social” media from the right has been lying to a lot of their viewers and readers.
One more thing:
Science actually was aware of the greenhouse effect for more than 100 years, the big problem was that scientists before thought that the earth would absorb the megatons of CO2 that humans emit and that the atmosphere would let a lot of the warming caused by that increase to go out to space. But then around the 1950s scientists began to notice that that was grossly wrong.
Read the Book (available on line) The Discovery of Global Warming particularly the time when scientists like Plass had to realize they were wrong in assuming for ages that the earth would not change much by treating the atmosphere like a dumpster.
That sort of thing is a direct reaction to foolishness such as this–
“Foolishness”? Did you read your own cite?
Sure sounds to me like “snow causing chaos”, just as Dr. Viner predicted.
And as warming continues in the next half of the twenty years that Dr. Viner was talking about, heavy snows will most likely continue to become less frequent overall, and when they occasionally happen they will cause chaos in a society that has become less and less used to dealing with them. Just as Dr. Viner predicted.
Looks to me like your conservative cite source, and the conservative media it quoted, have deliberately tried to spin a climate scientist’s predictions to make them look grossly exaggerated and “hysterical”, and in the process have failed to notice that what he really said is actually tallying fairly well with the course of events.
And in general, no, climate science denial isn’t “a direct reaction” to climate science “hysteria” swinging too far in the opposite direction. Climate science denial is usually just a stubborn refusal by ill-informed and irrational people to believe facts that they find dismaying or inconvenient.
I mean, nice try on defending the usual conservative “it’s YOUR fault I’m being so stupid!” rhetoric, but it is not a persuasive argument.
Besides what @Kimstu said, that repeated chestnut of a sorry talking point was an example of what I have seen many times coming from contrarian media, the pattern is:
Mainstream media gets a shaky (but plausibly defensible) opinion from a researcher that could be wrong.
Get a mainstream media writer to make it sound bad by ignoring context.
Get a right wing blogessor from the internet to get that misguided article to sound worse and foolish.
Repeat it like a creationist repeats the tale of Piltdown man by omitting forever to their readers or viewers that other scientists or science writers corrected that mistake/fraud of the past years ago.
Incidentally, the original piece that the right wing bloggosphere grabbed like an astrologer with certainty, came from the Independent in England (the link from the contrarian blogessor does not work), Science writer Peter Hadfield explained years ago how misleading was the original article that did not cite any actual research, but the cherry-picked opinions of the actual researchers.
It depends on how you pose the question. If you make it an appeal to the “good old days”, they’ll agree with you:
“Man, it’s way too hot today. Remember how it used to be, that we’d only have two or three days a year that were this hot? Man, I miss that.”
“Oh, yeah, those were the days, I miss that too.”
But as soon as they detect that it’s about Global Warming, they’ll change course, and suddenly, the past five years all having way too many days that are Just Too Hot is something that isn’t happening.
You do realize, course corrections ARE what science does.
As mentioned, ozone depletion was rectified by following the science. It was not a failed prediction, it was a heeded warning.
Hell, I think that many climate deniers actually have an unusual trust in science: they trust that something can be invented that will fix the problem or at least alleviate it so they don’t have to suffer. Like someone else said above, right now between bicycling in 90 degrees or turning on the A/C at 95, they’ll choose the later, and they are looking forward to the tech that allows them to do that w/o consequences.
And that’s something science is constantly dealing with. We dealt with the ozone issue and it never got as bad as we were warned it could have…because we fixed it.
I still hear people complain about all the hysteria leading up to Y2K. As we know, nothing became of it. Far too many people don’t understand that nothing became of it because of all the last minute patches that were written, deployed, tested etc, all behind the scenes.
Most recently, we had (and still have) Covid. Look at how many people fought tooth and nail against wearing a mask, then as the curve began to flatten they were the same ones proving masks were worthless because things started to calm down. Ignoring, of course, everyone around them was masked (and eventually vaxxed) and that’s why they never got sick.
Here’s a quote I’ve posted a number of times here since covid hit.
Then why not say that? When discussing climate change, responding with “Hopefully they figure something out” would make a whole lot more sense than “it’s fake”. Beside, I think assuming/hoping they figure something out is a perfectly acceptable position. Sure, I could drive less or buy products that use less packaging, but those are a drop in the bucket. It’s going to take improvements in manufacturing and energy production to see real changes.
Or some sort of megaproject geo-engineering.
And then the contrarians forget that to do those properly, then one has to consult… climate scientists and computer modelers that have been demonized by those contrarians…
Wasnt there a big scare in the 70s, with people saying an ice age was coming? They were wrong.
No, there wasn’t.
Well, but if then the climate-fix wonder-tech super-project is carried out profitably by Exxon-Mobil or Chevron, ah, then, the climate scientists and computer modelers they hire to figure out how to make that much money will be seen as patriotic heroes.
…
…Naaah, the big CEO who will become a multi-trillionaire will be hailed as a visionary. The scientists and geeks will still be scorned as just minions.
Yes, there was. That is, there was a big scare that they were wrong about.
From your own link cite:
That there was some study done to see if it was a viable model, and that some press outlets inaccurately reported on it does not make it a “big scare”.
Oh, there was a NewsWeek article that said that it could be a concern, with a big scary cover and everything. 
Was there a big scare about an alien invasion in 1938?
So, please define the “they” that you used to say “there was a big scare that they were wrong about.” Do you admit that it was less than 10% of climate scientists, and they weren’t even saying that it was happening, but rather that they were just studying to see if it was? If you are able to admit that, do you realize how misleading your statement is? Now that you see how misleading your statement is, do you feel like restating it to be a bit less so?
OTOH, this inaccurate factoid is often trotted out to claim that the scientists were all wrong then, how do we know that they aren’t wrong now? The point being to cast doubt on the scientific consensus of global warming and climate change.
It’s as low effort as a creationist saying, “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” and dropping the mike and walking out to the applause they imagine in their heads. It’s about as accurate and persuasive, too.
I have expended far more time debunking what has been debunked thousands of times than it deserves. If a poster wants to make a case that there was a “big scare” they can make the case, present the evidence and have it thoroughly destroyed at every turn, as it always is. As yours (slightly higher effort in linking to a wiki page, but still extremely low effort) has been.
However, to a low effort “whatabout” like I was responding to, my response of negation is all that is deserved.
If this is actually something that you believe and think that should be discussed, while this may not be the proper thread for it, if you actually put work into it, then maybe I can find some time to debunk whatever claims you may make towards it, if you want to start a seperate thread for it.
IIRC, the group was heavily represented by the demographic “writers for popular newsstand-magazines and mass-market paperbacks the sort you bought at drugstores”.