# Why would climate change be a hoax? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773 "2015-05-11T14:31:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/121 "2015-05-15T06:39:18Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It is only what people \*\*do \*\*what matters. As the example of how we in the developed world got clean water and sewage systems shows, you only get a fraction of what actually is done in cases like the one at hand. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > How do you feel about these first six? I have some more on my list but if we don’t agree on these, it’s pointless to go on. You are right, it is pointless for you. As I have seen many times the reason why you claim things like the scientists are not committing fraud, but at the next moment you report or imply that things like with the surveys about the consensus are fraudulent shows that your efforts are mostly geared to toss bones to your peers that would feel upset if you do not do so. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/122 "2015-05-15T07:13:15Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll re-re-re-re-re-re-repeat. Looking at your list I have to say that you are aware of what is going on, but your view of the surveys of the consensus and the number of scientific papers shows a basic contradiction, that and comparing scientists to low criminals. I can see only a miasma of contradicting posts coming from you like in many past threads. As I have seen in many reports contradictions like that are coming mostly as a result of political or ideological leanings. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/123 "2015-05-15T08:09:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll re-re-re-re-re-re-repeat. Better you should re-re-re-re-re-re-repent. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/124 "2015-05-16T00:13:17Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yup. I really wasn’t trying to be scientific, but, yup, my bad, should’ve said “peristaltic effect of black carbon in short-order-cook bass-playing Vanadium atoms” > I was right, however, that no matter the reason, Antarctic ice was a record high. It wasn’t a drive-by. I stopped and peed in the front yard. It may have been alien tacos or Voldemort’s semen, by it was a record high and I’m sorry facts offend you, especially after your I’m-so-sciencey post. > Or are you saying that it wasn’t a record high? > Please, don’t forget that it was originally a comment not on the science, but on how science is reported. You avoided that fact then and not conveniently forget it. If by “I really wasn’t trying to be scientific” you mean “I really have no concern at all about accuracy”, then I agree. The fact in this case, that you are apparently unable to grasp, is that the growth of Antarctic sea ice has a direct positive correlation with Antarctic warming and the melt of the Antarctic ice sheets, for the reasons I stated. \*\* It means the opposite of what the nitwits writing denialist blogs claim it does\*\*, and what you apparently thought it meant. Some of those writing denialist blogs know it’s deceptive but they post it anyway, but I’m quite willing to assume that you just didn’t know better. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I fully, 100%, unreservedly believe these things: > > 1. The average temperature of the Earth increased about 1°C from 1900 to today. > 2. An increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will, _ceteris paribus_, increase temperatures. > 3. CO2 concentration has increased from about 295ppm in 1900 to about 404 now. > 4. Human activity has played a part in this increase. I’d say 1/3 at the very least, probably much more. > 5. Climate is a super-complex system and the cause-effect relations of the many factors are not always clear. Many are clear, at least in first and second order. > 6. The vast majority of the world’s scientists are **not** conspiratorial liars. I’m sure a teeny tiny part are, but that’s true for anything. > > How do you feel about these first six? I have some more on my list but if we don’t agree on these, it’s pointless to go on. I have no idea where you’re going with this. Do you honestly want to know how I feel about those pronouncements? Why? OK. I think most of it is correct, and some of it is deceptive, and none of it means anything without scientific understanding and context. **Example:** #3: CO2 concentration has increased from about 295ppm in 1900 to about 404 now. To the average Joe, those are just some numbers. Some questions to establish context: - what is the highest CO2 concentration the earth has routinely reached during the last 800,000 years of glacial cycles? How does that compare with 400 ppm? - what is the quantitative difference between CO2 levels at glacial minima and at glacial maxima, the two climate extremes the earth experiences in glacial cycles? What does that tell us about the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 levels? How does this compare with what we’ve added to the carbon cycle since industrialization? - when was the last time the earth’s atmosphere had 400 ppm of CO2? **Example:** #4: Human activity has played a part in this increase. I’d say 1/3 at the very least, probably much more. You’d say “1/3 at the very least”? Based on what? Maybe you should [look at this chart](http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2013/05/gr-co2-graphs-624.png) of CO2 levels. [Or this one](http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif), over a period of 800,000 years. How come CO2 levels were so incredibly stable and took off like a rocket just as industrialization started burning fossil fuels? If human activity is only contributing a relatively small fraction of the incremental CO2, where the hell is the rest of it coming from, and conversely, where the hell is the 35 billion or so metric tonnes that we dump into the atmosphere every year going? And how come the ratio of [sup]13[/sup]C to [sup]12[/sup]C carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been dropping since industrialization, reflecting the lower isotopic ratios present in fossil fuels? **Example:** #1: The average temperature of the Earth increased about 1°C from 1900 to today. I can hear Joe Denier laughing. One degree? The temperature can change more than that over one single day! More questions: Do you have any understanding of why this is significant? Do you imagine that this is the equilibrium temperature for the present level of CO2? What, in fact, is the CO2 level we’ll stabilize at? 600 ppm? 800? What are the equilibrium temperatures for that? Do you understand how rapid these changes are compared to any natural changes, and consequent impacts on both the climatological and biological systems on this planet? And what will the effects be on extreme weather, local climate changes like floods and droughts, crop losses, property destruction and loss of life, and large-scale ecosystem impacts? OK, just one more: **Example:** #5: Climate is a super-complex system and the cause-effect relations of the many factors are not always clear. Many are clear, at least in first and second order. Like many other truisms, this is, well, true. But what does it mean? In particular, what should it mean to someone like yourself who has "clearly and unequivocally [stated] that “[the scientific consensus on AGW is] not a mere majority of specialists. It’s an overwhelming one.” It means that, if you honestly believe that, then you trust what the science and the scientists have to say, rather than relying on your own gut, your own prejudices and beliefs, your own wishful thinking. After all, if the issue is so “super-complex”, how can you possibly know more about it than the consensus of the thousands of the world’s leading climate scientists? And what the science and the scientists have to say is pretty fairly and succinctly summed up in [this joint statement](http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf) [PDF file] by the world’s leading national academies of science: The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. … We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of climate change. Added to this is footnote 3, stating that “We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”, and a six-point action plan beginning with a call on world leaders to “acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing” and to build on the work of the IPCC to define and enforce emissions targets. To claim to accept the scientific consensus but reject this particular scientific consensus, or to accept both but continue to insist that we should not take serious action to mitigate climate change is, I will say again, a syndrome identified in clinical psychology as cognitive dissonance, that peculiar rationalization of denial that occurs when we encounter facts that contradict deeply held beliefs or preferences. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/125 "2015-05-16T03:02:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If by “I really wasn’t trying to be scientific” you mean “I really have no concern at all about accuracy”, then I agree. The fact in this case, that you are apparently unable to grasp, is that the growth of Antarctic sea ice has a direct positive correlation with Antarctic warming and the melt of the Antarctic ice sheets, for the reasons I stated. \*\* It means the opposite of what the nitwits writing denialist blogs claim it does\*\*, and what you apparently thought it meant. Some of those writing denialist blogs know it’s deceptive but they post it anyway, but I’m quite willing to assume that you just didn’t know better. So, it was a record high. Thanks. > [@](#): > > I have no idea where you’re going with this. Do you honestly want to know how I feel about those pronouncements? Why? > > OK. I think most of it is correct, and some of it is deceptive, and none of it means anything without scientific understanding and context. > > **Example:** #3: CO2 concentration has increased from about 295ppm in 1900 to about 404 now. > > To the average Joe, those are just some numbers. Some questions to establish context: > > - what is the highest CO2 concentration the earth has routinely reached during the last 800,000 years of glacial cycles? How does that compare with 400 ppm? > > - what is the quantitative difference between CO2 levels at glacial minima and at glacial maxima, the two climate extremes the earth experiences in glacial cycles? What does that tell us about the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 levels? How does this compare with what we’ve added to the carbon cycle since industrialization? > > - when was the last time the earth’s atmosphere had 400 ppm of CO2? > > **Example:** #4: Human activity has played a part in this increase. I’d say 1/3 at the very least, probably much more. > > You’d say “1/3 at the very least”? Based on what? Maybe you should [look at this chart](http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2013/05/gr-co2-graphs-624.png) of CO2 levels. [Or this one](http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif), over a period of 800,000 years. > > How come CO2 levels were so incredibly stable and took off like a rocket just as industrialization started burning fossil fuels? If human activity is only contributing a relatively small fraction of the incremental CO2, where the hell is the rest of it coming from, and conversely, where the hell is the 35 billion or so metric tonnes that we dump into the atmosphere every year going? And how come the ratio of [sup]13[/sup]C to [sup]12[/sup]C carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been dropping since industrialization, reflecting the lower isotopic ratios present in fossil fuels? > > **Example:** #1: The average temperature of the Earth increased about 1°C from 1900 to today. > > I can hear Joe Denier laughing. One degree? The temperature can change more than that over one single day! > > More questions: Do you have any understanding of why this is significant? Do you imagine that this is the equilibrium temperature for the present level of CO2? What, in fact, is the CO2 level we’ll stabilize at? 600 ppm? 800? What are the equilibrium temperatures for that? Do you understand how rapid these changes are compared to any natural changes, and consequent impacts on both the climatological and biological systems on this planet? And what will the effects be on extreme weather, local climate changes like floods and droughts, crop losses, property destruction and loss of life, and large-scale ecosystem impacts? > > OK, just one more: > > **Example:** #5: Climate is a super-complex system and the cause-effect relations of the many factors are not always clear. Many are clear, at least in first and second order. > > Like many other truisms, this is, well, true. But what does it mean? In particular, what should it mean to someone like yourself who has "clearly and unequivocally [stated] that “[the scientific consensus on AGW is] not a mere majority of specialists. It’s an overwhelming one.” > > It means that, if you honestly believe that, then you trust what the science and the scientists have to say, rather than relying on your own gut, your own prejudices and beliefs, your own wishful thinking. After all, if the issue is so “super-complex”, how can you possibly know more about it than the consensus of the thousands of the world’s leading climate scientists? > > And what the science and the scientists have to say is pretty fairly and succinctly summed up in [this joint statement](http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf) [PDF file] by the world’s leading national academies of science: > The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. > > … We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of climate change. > Added to this is footnote 3, stating that “We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”, and a six-point action plan beginning with a call on world leaders to “acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing” and to build on the work of the IPCC to define and enforce emissions targets. > > To claim to accept the scientific consensus but reject this particular scientific consensus, or to accept both but continue to insist that we should not take serious action to mitigate climate change is, I will say again, a syndrome identified in clinical psychology as cognitive dissonance, that peculiar rationalization of denial that occurs when we encounter facts that contradict deeply held beliefs or preferences. [/QUOTE] Even when I state scientific facts that you agree with I’m “deceptive” and I get treated like an ignorant because I don’t make a treatise of each point. You can’t simply say yes to the most basic points because you’re afraid of ever agreeing with a sceptic. Nice not debating with you. Bye. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/126 "2015-05-16T03:43:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Even when I state scientific facts that you agree with I’m “deceptive” and I get treated like an ignorant because I don’t make a treatise of each point. You can’t simply say yes to the most basic points because you’re afraid of ever agreeing with a sceptic. > Nice not debating with you. > Bye. Of course, the **Aji de Gallina** does ignore the very example of him claiming that the consensus is deceptive, but at the same time he tell us that the vast majority of scientists do indeed agree. IMHO the idea here is to at least acknowledge most of the audience the Aji has over here, it is clear that him pushing for extreme doubts is made then for the people that do have a political stake on declaring that this issue is a hoax. As I noticed before the game of contrarians that are more sophisticated is to claim that they are not contrarians or deniers, **but they end up pushing extreme and baseless doubts anyway** , it has to be noted that this is now mostly based on political reasons, it is geared to help the deniers in positions in power and the ones that support them to continue with their denial. Neil Degase Tyson expected the Republicans and conservatives to eventually yield to science as it will in reality in the end help protect the wealth of our nation (and all other nations too). Unfortunately there are many smart contrarians that do know a lot of what is going on, but they can not picture themselves being voted out of the island of their peers and friends. Problem is that that behaviour also encourages the Republicans to follow what denier sources continue to spew and so it looks that now Tyson continues to be wrong in expecting the light to shine on the current crop of Republicans. > **[GOP Wants to Cut $300+ Million From NASA’s Earth Science Program](https://slate.com/technology/2015/04/nasa-budget-gop-committee-wants-to-slash-and-burn-earth-sciences.html)** > > There’s no other way to put this, so I’ll be succinct: A passel of anti-science global warming denying GOP representatives have put together a funding... > [@](#): > > House GOP Wants to Eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in New Budget > > There’s no other way to put this, so I’ll be succinct: A passel of anti-science global warming denying GOP representatives have put together a funding authorization bill for NASA that at best cuts more than $300 million from the agency’s current Earth science budget. > > At worst? More than $500 million. > > The actual amount of the cut depends on whether some caps enacted in 2011 are removed or not. If they are, then Earth sciences gets $1.45 billion. If not, it gets $1.2 billion. The current FY 2015 budget is $1.773 billion. > > Compare that with the White House request for FY ’16 of $1.947 billion for Earth sciences. The bill will be marked up (amended and rewritten) by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee today. > > This, for the space agency which has a critical role in understanding climate change and its effects on our planet. > [@](#): > > But the evisceration of Earth sciences means this bill is seriously, critically flawed.\*\* I have written about this again and again: Republicans in the House and Senate don’t want NASA studying Earth, because they think (or say) that global warming isn’t real, or isn’t a problem, or whatever talking point they’ve been told to use this week.\*\* What they say in statements is that NASA should be looking outward, and other agencies should be studying Earth. > > Sounds good, right? But then they pledge to cut that ability from other agencies, too (that particular bill passed, by the way). Pretty transparent. > > If you think I’m mad, I am. And so are others; Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Maryland, has pledged to fight the bill, and I hope others Congress members in the House do as well. Cutting NASA Earth Sciences funding is, frankly, disgusting. Much like throwing snowballs in Congress. > > Update, April 30, 2015, at 14:30 UTC: It’s even worse than I thought. In an op-ed in The Hill, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, wrote that the GOP members of the committee didn’t even give the writeup of the bill to Democrats on the committee until very late last week, indicating the GOP members are not operating in good faith on this issue. > > So yeah, damn right I’m mad. When you vote for people who publicly and loudly spout nonsense about science, and go against the overwhelming 97 percent consensus among climate scientists, what do you expect? Indeed, **The Bad Astronomer** (AKA Phil Plait), that was expected. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/127 "2015-05-16T03:57:52Z")
And speaking of extreme doubts being seeded: I will not be surprised that since the \*\*Aji de Gallina \*\*accepts that the temperature has increased that he also accepts that cap ice is melting at the poles specially (Polar amplification of the temperatures is real indeed), but it is vital for the ‘well-being’ of deniers out there to ensure that they continue to hear the red herring about the extent of the ice around the Antarctic. Declaring that it was a record avoids the important item, that extent of ice over the sea does not contribute to the rise of the oceans that the continuing loss of cap ice will cause, and there is evidence that an acceleration of the loss of cap ice is happening now. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/128 "2015-05-16T09:14:39Z")
As we can see just in this thread, one thing about Deniers is that there’s a whole hierarchy. At one extreme there are some who can’t imagine that CO[sub]2[/sub] could have an effect at a concentration of less than 0.05% in the atmosphere. These are the same who laugh at scientists whenever it snows. A slightly better-informed group will focus on what FauxNews wants them to believe about the Climategate e-mails. But then you have some who post a laundry list of things they believe: CO[sub]2[/sub] is a greenhouse gas, temperatures have risen, Al Gore doesn’t really outspend Big Oil. And then they spring some “gotcha”: A trivial fact they think thousands of climatologists have somehow overlooked. In this case, the gotcha was Antarctic sea ice – just one step up from the redneck who tossed a snowaball in the Senate. With ships needing to be rescued from the sea ice, FauxNews and the Hoaxsters had a field day. SDMB is a refreshing change from some blogs where it often seems like the 6th-grade science students are debating with the 7th-grade students. Well, here’s a tip for the 7th-graders: All else equal, if sea water were freezing, levels of the open sea would be falling. They’re not – they’re rising. There is huge drainage from Antarctica’s ice mass (though most comes right back as snowfall). … And yes, some freshwater turns into sea ice. The sea ice is dwarfed by the 75 gigatonne (and accelerating) _net_ annual loss from Antarctica, but, like the fact it snowed at Imhofe’s house, is far more visible. For visible land ice reductions, consider the Himalayas or, closer to home, the Sierra Nevada: with downstream water consumers being menaced by future shortages. I’m reminded of another climate change discussion in this forum. I mentioned that the 2000’s had eight Category-5 Atlantic hurricanes compared with only two in the 1990’s. I was informed that this statistic was useless – _only hurricanes that made landfall **in the U.S.** counted_. :smack: :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/129 "2015-05-16T10:32:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course, how we dealt with problems that would get worse or were invisible to many was not done ever. :rolleyes: > > Except how we controlled cholera, and then acid rain, ozone depleting gases, lead in fuel and paints and other issues. You are confused about the difference between the ability to solve a problem and the will to solve it. The problems you mention did not require personal sacrifice of any kind, and whatever cost was involved was relatively trivial for an individual. It certainly did not require a diminution in lifestyle. If we are to solve for overproduction of AGW gasses in enough time to make a difference, we need to pay a cost today that is too substantial. Neither Al Gore nor Joe Tanzania are going to personally sacrifice; the taxpayer is not going to publicly sacrifice. So what is going to happen is a lot of handwringing and lipsticking while various experiments try to make the energy grid greener but still competitive financially. Perhaps one of them will work… ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/130 "2015-05-16T11:49:32Z")
**Chief Pedant** , what would you think of a general tax on carbon? Assume that economic sanctions would be imposed on any country that didn’t cooperate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/131 "2015-05-16T13:43:22Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You are confused about the difference between the ability to solve a problem and the will to solve it Pay attention, I also showed why the political will is not there, there are indeed other things we have to do besides using our consumer power. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The problems you mention did not require personal sacrifice of any kind, and whatever cost was involved was relatively trivial for an individual. It certainly did not require a diminution in lifestyle. > > If we are to solve for overproduction of AGW gasses in enough time to make a difference, we need to pay a cost today that is too substantial. Neither Al Gore nor Joe Tanzania are going to personally sacrifice; the taxpayer is not going to publicly sacrifice. You really ignored what Richard Alley told us after consulting with many economists (and this was mentioned many times before) To control cholera and many other diseases and problems brought by not having reliable clean water and a sewage system; the people in the developed countries accepted that, **to have a better lifestyle too** , about 1% of the GDP had to be invested and then used to maintain that cleanup system. The same amount has been calculated that will have to be invested and used for the maintenance of the systems and technology that will be deployed to control our emissions, we can not continue to use our atmosphere as a sewer. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > So what is going to happen is a lot of handwringing and lipsticking while various experiments try to make the energy grid greener but still competitive financially. > > Perhaps one of them will work… As noted before many times your tactic is to tell us again about the problem, and not about what needs to be done. There is also a continuous showing of ignorance about what the experts are telling us about how to get to a solution. There is also the item that many skeptics can tell you that this change is happening already\* the point is that there is still a lot that can be done to prevent even more dire scenarios. \*Of course many skepticts that are really contrarians continue to repeat many denier myths while at the same time they harp about that, their idea -seen many times in this message board too- is to claim that industry alone will take care of the issue, forgetting that history shows that it will be much faster and efficient to control the issue with the power of our governments in concert with industry. Our job is to encourage concerted efforts by the government and industry, that is the most important thing that will give us the most significant change. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/132 "2015-05-20T14:40:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The arguments I’ve seen never seem to get any further than “Follow the money!”. I’ve never seen any of them that explain how there’s supposed to be more money in acknowledging climate change, you’re just supposed to “follow it” yourself, and if you ask for an explanation, you’re accused of being “sheeple” (what’s the singular of that, anyway, a “sherson”?). Just how many Senate and House seats are owned outright by Exxon, and how many do they have controlling interest? I don’t believe this is public information anymore. Is it really true that frackers are exempt from filing environmental impact reports? > [@Chronos](#): > > EDIT: I think you’re trying to find reason where there isn’t any. Just because someone holds a belief, doesn’t mean that there’s a rational reason for it. For the typical coal miner, this isn’t a hoax … this is about his job … for some this is reason enough to deny AGW. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/133 "2015-05-22T01:13:12Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Is it really true that frackers are exempt from filing environmental impact reports? Sort of, but it’s probably more attributable to regulatory lack of foresight than anything nefarious. EIRs are strictly a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement, which (as the name implies) only applies to California. You’re probably thinking of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the national version of CEQA. CEQA is triggered whenever a project requires an agency to take action a project (more or less). That project must have undergone CEQA evaluation for the permit to be issued. This includes everything from changing zoning to building a massive factory, so there are lots of CEQA reports. They can range from categorical exemptions to full EIRs. California is putting together a programmatic EIR for fracking. Essentially, it’s looking at whether elements of fracking require specific evaluation or whether some elements can be categorically exempted from the requirements. This approach isn’t unusual for common industrial operations and can range from “this activity is inherently insignificant and does not require additional CEQA analysis” to “this type of activity is always case-by-case and always requires project-specific analysis.” In between is “this type of project doesn’t need evaluation for (air quality, water quality, aesthetics…) but should be evaluated for other categories.” Theoretically, all current fracking should have been evaluated under CEQA already; however, some activities slip through the CEQA cracks. A developer asks for Project A (natural gas extraction) and it gets approved and permitted. The developer wants to do related activity and sees that the permits don’t prohibit it and he requires no additional permitting for it, so he shifts to Project A’ (fracking). Project A’ wasn’t included in the original EIR impact assessment and shouldn’t have been allowed under the permits, but it wasn’t anticipated by the permits and wasn’t prohibited. Projects are less likely to trigger NEPA, which triggers when federal agencies are required to take action on a project (more or less). Since the federal government is less involved with day to day actions than local agencies, projects under NEPA tend to be bigger or interstate affairs. The situation with NEPA appears to be more or less the same. Gas extraction was permitted after undergoing NEPA review. Fracking wasn’t evaluated, but it wasn’t prohibited. It falls within the range of described activities, so they’re doing it some places. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/134 "2015-05-22T12:33:18Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > For the typical coal miner, this isn’t a hoax … this is about his job … for some this is reason enough to deny AGW. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ---
**Author:** ![mememine69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dfb087/32.png) [@mememine69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mememine69)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/135 "2015-05-30T18:52:30Z")
It wasn’t a hoax for science to be 97% certain for 34 years that the planet was doomed from Human CO2. But goose stepping “believers” were 100% certain and told their own children science wasn’t “ALLOWED” to say it was “proven” they were doomed. And now, after 34 years of climate action failure only unstoppable denial is now; “certain”. Deniers “believe” decades of needless exaggeration, panic and fear mongering of vague science to billions of children can only be a crime against humanity in the history books. Deny that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/136 "2015-05-30T18:58:55Z")
Hard to deny a post that makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/137 "2015-05-30T19:00:30Z")
> [@mememine69](#): > > It wasn’t a hoax for science to be 97% certain for 34 years that the planet was doomed from Human CO2. But goose stepping “believers” were 100% certain and told their own children science wasn’t “ALLOWED” to say it was “proven” they were doomed. > And now, after 34 years of climate action failure only unstoppable denial is now; “certain”. > > Deniers “believe” decades of needless exaggeration, panic and fear mongering of vague science to billions of children can only be a crime against humanity in the history books. > Deny that. I’ve been working since early this morning, so maybe I’m sleepy, but I’m having a lot of trouble understanding what you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![mememine69](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dfb087/32.png) [@mememine69](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mememine69)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/138 "2015-05-30T19:03:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’ve been working since early this morning, so maybe I’m sleepy, but I’m having a lot of trouble understanding what you’re saying. Science only “agreed” with 97% certainty for the worst crisis imaginable actually happening so let’s all just be happy they couldn’t be “certain”. It wasn’t a hoax, it was an exaggeration of vague science. It’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/139 "2015-05-30T19:18:25Z")
> [@mememine69](#): > > Science only “agreed” with 97% certainty for the worst crisis imaginable actually happening so let’s all just be happy they couldn’t be “certain”. > It wasn’t a hoax, it was an exaggeration of vague science. It’s a good thing. No it is not a good thing, in one clear area the scientists actually underestimated the rate of change: > **[Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss)** > > Photographer James Balog shares new image sequences from the Extreme Ice Survey, a network of time-lapse cameras recording glaciers receding at an alarming rate, some of the most vivid evidence yet of climate change. > [@](#): > > Ice is the canary in the global coal mine. It’s the place where we can see and touch and hear and feel climate change in action. > 1:47 > Climate change is a really abstract thing in most of the world. Whether or not you believe in it is based on your sense of is it raining more or is it raining less? Is it getting hotter or is it getting colder? What do the computer models say about this, that and the other thing? All of that, strip it away. In the world of the arctic and alpine environments, where the ice is, it’s real and it’s present. The changes are happening. They’re very visible. They’re photographable. They’re measurable. > > 2:16 > 95 percent of the glaciers in the world are retreating or shrinking. That’s outside Antarctica. 95 percent of the glaciers in the world are retreating or shrinking, and that’s because the precipitation patterns and the temperature patterns are changing. There is no significant scientific dispute about that. It’s been observed, it’s measured, it’s bomb-proof information. And the great irony and tragedy of our time is that a lot of the general public thinks that science is still arguing about that. Science is not arguing about that. In these images we see ice from enormous glaciers, ice sheets that are hundreds of thousands of years old breaking up into chunks, and chunk by chunk by chunk, iceberg by iceberg, turning into global sea level rise. > [@](#): > > \*\* When I realized that climate change was real, and it was not based on computer models, I decided that one day I would do a project looking at trying to manifest climate change photographically. And that led me to this project. \*\*Initially, I was working on a National Geographic assignment – conventional, single frame, still photography. And one crazy day, I got the idea that I should – after that assignment was finished – I got the idea that I should shoot in time-lapse photography, that I should station a camera or two at a glacier and let it shoot every 15 minutes, or every hour or whatever and watch the progression of the landscape over time. > > 4:11 > Well, within about three weeks, I incautiously turned that idea of a couple of time-lapse cameras into 25 time-lapse cameras. And the next six months of my life were the hardest time in my career, trying to design, build and deploy out in the field these 25 time-lapse cameras. They are powered by the sun. Solar panels power them. Power goes into a battery. There is a custom made computer that tells the camera when to fire. And these cameras are positioned on rocks on the sides of the glaciers, and they look in on the glacier from permanent, bedrock positions, and they watch the evolution of the landscape. We just had a number of cameras out on the Greenland Ice Sheet. We actually drilled holes into the ice, way deep down below the thawing level, and had some cameras out there for the past month and a half or so. Actually, there’s still a camera out there right now. In any case, the cameras shoot roughly every hour. Some of them shoot every half hour, every 15 minutes, every five minutes. > > 5:10 > Here’s a time lapse of one of the time-lapse units being made. (Laughter) I personally obsessed about every nut, bolt and washer in these crazy things. I spent half my life at our local hardware store during the months when we built these units originally. > > 5:26 > We’re working in most of the major glaciated regions of the northern hemisphere. Our time-lapse units are in Alaska, the Rockies, Greenland and Iceland, and we have repeat photography positions, that is places we just visit on an annual basis, in British Columbia, the Alps and Bolivia. > [@](#): > > 10:22 > Now it’s really hard to grasp the scale of these places, because as the glaciers – one of the things is that places like Alaska and Greenland are huge, they’re not normal landscapes – but as the glaciers are retreating, they’re also deflating, like air is being let out of a balloon. And so, there are features on this landscape. There’s a ridge right in the middle of the picture, up above where that arrow comes in, that shows you that a little bit. There’s a marker line called the trim line above our little red illustration there. This is something no self-respecting photographer would ever do – you put some cheesy illustration on your shot, right? – and yet you have to do it sometimes to narrate these points. But, in any case, the deflation of this glacier since 1984 has been higher than the Eiffel Tower, higher than the Empire State Building. It is now more likely that, regarding the ocean rise that cap ice collapse means, we are more likely to see a few feet of ocean rise by mid century instead of the end of the century when no acceleration of the loss of that cap ice was observed; well, now it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773.md?page=6)