What are your beliefs on climate change?

[treestarfae]

Do you think there will be coastal flooding by the end of the century or not?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.624672b6706c

[Barb_]

I would argue that "beliefs" is a loaded term. Belief is a synonym for faith. Maybe we should rephrase the question? Something like, "Do you agree with the conclusions of these scientists based on these facts?"

[Bluegoat]

There already is some coastal flooding, there are countries where people are making plans to evacuate coastal regions and islands. 

 

Governments worldwide, and insurance companies, are also planning for this.

 

Will it reach 2m?  Maybe - they are finding that levels are rising faster and more than they expected, pretty consistently. 

[Barb_]

And yes, I think the situation is grim. I grew up near the beach in South Florida and over my lifetime I've watched them shrink. Rising sea levels are an observable fact in South Florida.

[Lady Florida.]

Climate change is not a belief system.

[treestarfae]

I would argue that "beliefs" is a loaded term. Belief is a synonym for faith. Maybe we should rephrase the question? Something like, "Do you agree with the conclusions of these scientists based on these facts?"

 

There are many people that think the evidence is imaginary. I don't want to leave them out. :)

[creekland]

Belief?  I believe we'd better all get used to it and prepare for it.  I think we've passed the point of being able to change anything - with no hope on the horizon.

[mamaraby]

I don't have beliefs about climate change. I think the scientific consensus is pretty clear and I'll go with the data - no faith or belief required.

[maize]

The key word in that article is "could".

 

Climate change is a massively complex problem with lots of unknowns, and models that attempt to predict what might happen if carbon dioxide levels increase by x amount necessarily incorporate a lot of uncertainty.

 

General scientific consensus is that rising levels of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) due to human activities are very likely affecting the climate of the earth, causing warming conditions that will accelerate during this century. There is a good chance this will lead to a rise in sea levels (much of the uncertainty comes from complexities surrounding cloud formation, behavior, and precipitation; for instance, warmer climate could potentially lead to greater snowfall in Antarctica; our predictive power in this area is very weak).

 

Scientific predictions regarding climate change and its effects remain riddled with coulds and mights.

 

Which of course doesn't mean we should ignore them.

Edited December 13, 2016 by maize

[Barb_]

There are many people that think the evidence is imaginary. I don't want to leave them out. :)

We shouldn't normalize the rejection of fact.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Ok well wait.  We know there are some people who "believe" or "don't believe" scientific findings, etc.  So this isn't a crazy question. 

[Ali in OR]

I won't be investing in any beachfront property.

 

[Mimm]

Belief?  I believe we'd better all get used to it and prepare for it.  I think we've passed the point of being able to change anything - with no hope on the horizon.

 

See, I have a lot of belief in the ingenuity and survival instinct of the human race. Maybe we're slow and stupid but in the end, we'll figure out how to survive the damage we've done to the planet. And hopefully, in time, reverse it.

[Lady Florida.]

We shouldn't normalize the rejection of fact.

 

Unfortunately it seems we've already done that. 

[Mimm]

Oh and yes, of course I "believe" in climate change. There might be wiggle room on just how dire the situation is or how easy it will be to fix it, but at this point, it seems a bit silly to outright deny that it is real and happening. But hey, I just read a comment thread on another site with a bunch of moon landing deniers sooo yeah, I guess it takes all kinds. :p

[Barb_]

Ok well wait. We know there are some people who "believe" or "don't believe" scientific findings, etc. So this isn't a crazy question.

No, that's exactly the problem. You can agree or disagree with a conclusion, but no one should be accepting or rejecting it on faith.

[creekland]

See, I have a lot of belief in the ingenuity and survival instinct of the human race. Maybe we're slow and stupid but in the end, we'll figure out how to survive the damage we've done to the planet. And hopefully, in time, reverse it.

 

I think humans will survive - at least to a point - even thrive (we've traditionally done better as a species when warm cycles come), but then there's that point...

 

There are things that could reverse it - a planetary homeostasis effect - but we humans will still need to adapt to significant change (like more violent storms, more disease, etc).  More storms could also lead to more famines in places and the violence that could cause.

[regentrude]

What an odd way to state the question.

I do not "believe" in gravity - it exists whether I believe in it or not. Ditto for climate change. Scientific evidence is overwhelming.

 

Since I am not a climate scientist, I do not possess sufficient expertise to predict on what timeline we will see what magnitude of problem

Edited December 13, 2016 by regentrude

[maize]

Here's a little article on the complexities and uncertainties of climate change modeling:

http://thebulletin.org/uncertainty-climate-modeling

[SparklyUnicorn]

No, that's exactly the problem. You can agree or disagree with a conclusion, but no one should be accepting or rejecting it on faith.

 

But people do do that.

 

quite often

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure that belief and faith are attached, conceptually.  I believe all kinds of things because of evidence or reason.  I believe my son made his bed this morning, though I haven't gone to check, because I saw him go up to do it and he told me he had and is reliable about that. 

 

 

 

[Barb_]

But people do do that.

 

quite often

 

Which is why I address it every time I notice it.

[Tanaqui]

But, we cannot and should not try to stop change. Change happens. It's inevitable.

 

This change is happening much faster than can be explained by natural cycles. It isn't "inevitable". We did this.

 

Do you think there will be coastal flooding by the end of the century or not?

 

I went through Sandy. I know there's coastal flooding already happening.

 

[Pawz4me]

I think my science education and knowledge is woefully inadequate to form an opinion on my own. I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the overwhelming majority of expert scientists in related fields who say climate change is very real.

[carriede]

DH and I want to have a "forever home" to raise our children and grow roots in the community.

 

DH is an aerospace engineer and specifcally avoided applying for jobs in Cape Canaveral (even though we puffy heart NASA) because of the significant possibility of coastal flooding.

[regentrude]

See, I have a lot of belief in the ingenuity and survival instinct of the human race. Maybe we're slow and stupid but in the end, we'll figure out how to survive the damage we've done to the planet. And hopefully, in time, reverse it.

 

That is very likely, since many areas that are currently not very habitable have a chance to become more attractive (Northern Canada, for example). I am not concerned about humans as a race dying out.

But even if humans as a race survive, the climate change is going to cost many, many lives in other areas. We cannot relocate the inhabitants of drought and famine stricken regions to the greener climes of the north - many individuals will die. So, even if one is not concerned about the survival of humans as a species, there is grave concern about the survival of millions of individuals. And about the resulting conflicts when islands sink in some areas and water becomes scarce in others.

Edited December 13, 2016 by regentrude

[Barb_]

I'm not sure that belief and faith are attached, conceptually. I believe all kinds of things because of evidence or reason. I believe my son made his bed this morning, though I haven't gone to check, because I saw him go up to do it and he told me he had and is reliable about that.

Ok then, how about "believe" is more like "trust". People who talk about "believing" science often are the same people who don't "trust" facts.

[Aura]

The question was: What are your beliefs on climate change?

 

Not, do you believe in it or not.

 

The follow-up was: Do you think there will be coastal flooding by the end of the century or not?

followed by an article for discussion

 

Why would anyone assume that belief in this case is tied to faith instead of belief based on evidence and reasoning? Why argue over a word choice instead of the topic?

[hornblower]

What an odd way to state the question.

I do not "believe" in gravity - it exists whether I believe in it or not. Ditto for climate change. Scientific evidence is overwhelming.

 

Since I am not a climate scientist, I do not possess sufficient expertise to predict on what timeline we will see what magnitude of problem

 

ditto.

 

Which is why I defer to the experts at the IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml

 

 

[RegGuheert]

Do you think there will be coastal flooding by the end of the century or not?

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.624672b6706c

 

Let's see what is written there:

 

Scientists behind a new study published in the journal Nature used sophisticated computer models to decipher a longstanding riddle about how the massive, mostly uninhabited continent surrendered so much ice during previous warm periods on Earth. They found that similar conditions in the future could lead to monumental and irreversible increases in sea levels.

 

Models, huh?  Meanwhile, back on Earth, what is going on in Antarctica?  Oh, yeah, it is GAINING ice at a rate of 112 billion tons per year:

 

We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,†said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.†Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.

 

The seas will rise or fall around the world in a similar fashion to how they always have.

 

Also note that Antarctica is NOT getting warmer, it is getting colder:

 

These measured results are the facts.  Simulation results of climate rarely match the observations.  Simply put, they are not credible.

Edited December 13, 2016 by RegGuheert

[Barb_]

The question was: What are your beliefs on climate change?

 

Not, do you believe in it or not.

 

The follow-up was: Do you think there will be coastal flooding by the end of the century or not?

followed by an article for discussion

 

Why would anyone assume that belief in this case is tied to faith instead of belief based on evidence and reasoning? Why argue over a word choice instead of the topic?

Because words are powerful and frame the discussion.

[maize]

No, that's exactly the problem. You can agree or disagree with a conclusion, but no one should be accepting or rejecting it on faith.

I'm not sure the word belief has to be taken as a statement of faith. I tend to use it for things I accept as true or valid or reliable or even just probable. If I say I believe my illness is caused by a virus, it just means that is what is think to be probably true. If I say I believe A would be a better Secretary of State than B, I'm not implying some kind of religious faith in A.

 

So I could say that based on the information I have I believe human induced climate change is a reality, or I could consider that information to be faulty or not sufficiently robust and complete and say I do not believe human activity is producing climate change.

[Barb_]

RegGuheert, I wondered when you'd pop up!

[Garga]

There is climate change.  It's a normal thing that happens on this planet.  

 

I think the question is how much humans have an impact on the climate change.  Some people think we have a lot of impact.  Others think we don't have as much (maybe even none at all) of an impact.

 

And that's where the problem lies.  If one person is positive that human activity is hastening and creating an unnatural amount of climate change, they'll be desperate to halt that human activity.

 

If someone else (probably the factory owner) disagrees that humans have much of an impact on the climate, they will not want to make any changes in their activities.  

 

It's all a mess.  A great big mess.  Why is everything always a mess?   :confused1:

Edited December 13, 2016 by Garga

[happi duck]

Humans making choices in favor of the environment, our home, should be the norm no matter what.

 

It bugs me when people don't want to value the environment. Whether one "believes" or not why not care for our planet?

[maize]

 

ditto.

 

Which is why I defer to the experts at the IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml

 

 

Yeah, that's probably the best consensus we have at the moment.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think my science education and knowledge is woefully inadequate to form an opinion on my own. I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the overwhelming majority of expert scientists in related fields who say climate change is very real.

 

Yes this exactly.

Although we have to be somewhat careful with this too because a lot of times we are not reading the source information or information that is coming directly from scientists.  We are often reading news articles written by people who are as clueless as we are.

 

I'm also skeptical to the nth degree.  This is not to say I don't believe these things in particular. 

[6packofun]

I'd like to think I'm humble enough to not malign scientists who come to opposing conclusions. So my belief is that we don't really know it all and that the reality is somewhere in the middle.   WSJ opinion page has had some interesting articles in the past week, including one that expresses what seems to be FACT that if a scientist does not come to a certain conclusion they can have their jobs and/or funding ended.  Do I think human beings affect the earth and its climate?  Yes. How much?  I think the politicization of this issue makes it nearly impossible for laymen to know with certainty.  That makes it pretty tough to know what we should do about it in some ways.  Not all.  I also think that unless the whole industrialized world is on board, then the actions we take here in America result in our feeling good about ourselves but making woefully little actual impact.

 

Belief: 

1.

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

"his belief in the value of hard work"

 

2.

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

"a belief in democratic politics"

 

Something isn't automatically related to organized religion if the word belief is used. It's a common word in the English language.

Edited December 13, 2016 by 6packofun

[RegGuheert]

Yeah, that's probably the best consensus we have at the moment.

 

Michael Crichton put it best:

 

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

 

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

 

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

[RegGuheert]

RegGuheert, I wondered when you'd pop up!

 

No one else offered up any facts.  Just opinions.

[hornblower]

Hey Reg. Read the technical part of the  IPCC 4th & the whole of the 5th Report yet? I lost track of that other thread so I don't know.... 

[Guest]

I'd like to think I'm humble enough to not malign scientists who come to opposing conclusions. So my belief is that we don't really know it all and that the reality is somewhere in the middle. WSJ opinion page has had some interesting articles in the past week, including one that expresses what seems to be FACT that if a scientist does not come to a certain conclusion they can have their jobs and/or funding ended. Do I think human beings affect the earth and its climate? Yes. How much? I think the politicization of this issue makes it nearly impossible for laymen to know with certainty. That makes it pretty tough to know what we should do about it in some ways. Not all. I also think that unless the whole industrialized world is on board, then the actions we take here in America result in our feeling good about ourselves but making woefully little actual impact.

 

Belief:

 

1.

 

 

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

"his belief in the value of hard work"

 

 

2.

 

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

"a belief in democratic politics"

 

Something isn't automatically related to organized religion if the word belief is used. It's a common word in the English language.

Those were interesting articles and op eds for sure.

[maize]

I went through Sandy. I know there's coastal flooding already happening.

I'd be cautious about using anecdotes such as Sandy as evidence of climate change. Hurricanes causing coastal flooding is nothing new or recent.

 

The book Physics for Future Presidents includes a decent treatment of climate change science. Including a discussion of what hurricanes like Sandy (don't) contribute to the evidence.

 

I'm not a climate expert, most of my current understanding of the state of the science came from that book so it's only fair I list it as my authority :)

Edited December 13, 2016 by maize

[Bluegoat]

Ok then, how about "believe" is more like "trust". People who talk about "believing" science often are the same people who don't "trust" facts.

 

Yes, I think actually that trust is a good way to understand the use of faith in most contexts.  I would not say that people don't trust facts - I think that's a little unfair really and tends to beg the question.  Trust is a huge aspect of science - many things in science are purposefully constructed to ensure that it is trustworthy, so we can reasonably accept its judgements about what are facts.  If those constructs or methods seem suspect to anyone, that will very logically mean they distrust predictions and claims it makes. 

 

But in a lot of cases what people mean is just  "I think that is a likely explanation or possibility" but it is something where knowing for sure, or knowing wholly, is not possible, or they don't feel qualified to make a judgement so they are trusting that someone else does .

[Barb_]

I didn't bring up religion. I said belief is related to faith (not necessarily religious) as in trust or opinion and that using the word belief in the context of scientific theory is inappropriate and emotionally loaded.

 

ETA: obviously people can use whichever words they prefer, but the op's response seems to indicate she meant the word in the context I mentioned.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Barb_

[Bluegoat]

I didn't bring up religion. I said belief is related to faith (not necessarily religious) as in trust or opinion and that using the word belief in the context of scientific theory is inappropriate and emotionally loaded.

 

I have to trust that the information has been collected properly.

 

Trust that no one fiddled with it.

 

Trust that the explanations are in line with other theories and evidence.

 

Trust that no one is trying to get an advantage by being dishonest.

 

And so on.

 

A big issue at the beginning of the scientific era was, if we accept the experimental method, will it be a basis that engenders enough trust that we can go ahead to build reliable knowledge?  So - we have ways to try and create that trust built into the system.

 

But in some ways I think we can say its sucess at creating trust has been a little more limited that we might have thought in a more optimistic age.

[RegGuheert]

Likewise, Greenland is gaining ice mass at a record pace this season:

 

[SKL]

My beliefs:

• The science is not yet settled.  Open-minded studies should continue.
• The issue is way over-politicized.
• The earth is unlikely to experience a significant physical change for the worse, on a net basis, in the next 100 years.
• When rational reports are provided to rational listeners, they should include not only negative expected effects but positive expected effects.

[Barb_]

I have to trust that the information has been collected properly.

 

Trust that no one fiddled with it.

 

Trust that the explanations are in line with other theories and evidence.

 

Trust that no one is trying to get an advantage by being dishonest.

 

And so on.

 

A big issue at the beginning of the scientific era was, if we accept the experimental method, will it be a basis that engenders enough trust that we can go ahead to build reliable knowledge? So - we have ways to try and create that trust built into the system.

 

But in some ways I think we can say its sucess at creating trust has been a little more limited that we might have thought in a more optimistic age.

I'll concede the point that it takes a certain amount of trust to accept or reject a conclusion based on fact, but will still argue that a conversation goes a lot deeper and farther if we can frame it as a discussion of factual conclusions rather than one stemming from gut feelings or a system of belief or disbelief.

[hornblower]

Likewise

 

NASA data page on Greenland http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/