3
$\begingroup$

I see many scientific articles and newspapers out there saying that the climate change is happening. Yet, there are people who believe climate change is a hoax and a lie. But I haven't seen any 'scientific' articles that support that climate change is a hoax.

What are some reasons that some people believe that climate change is not real?

And is there any scientific articles (backed up by science) that support that climate change issue is not real? (A link to the website would be very helpful)

Thank you

|improve this question
$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Jan Doggen, EnergyNumbers, Daniel Griscom, kingledion, bon Dec 9 '16 at 14:35

  • This question does not appear to be about earth science, within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion $\endgroup$ – Spencer Dec 7 '16 at 23:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's an entire SE dedicated to scientific skepticism (skeptics.stackexchange.com). You might be better off checking there. $\endgroup$ – Trevor J. Smith Dec 8 '16 at 3:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Climate change skeptics have historically used the variability of solar output (which cycles every 11 years) as a potential source. Then they publish some wild numbers in a physicians journal with no real peer review. There are no real climate scientists that are skeptical about the existence of human causation. However, there are several scientists that debate the level at which human activity can alter climate. In general, those tend to be scientists who profess more than they research. $\endgroup$ – farrenthorpe Dec 8 '16 at 3:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The main reason why people don't believe in AGW (or at least pretend not to) boils down to the fact that it would either cost them money (e.g. the Koch brothers) or force them to change their lifestyles. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Dec 8 '16 at 7:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's explicitly seeking anti-science, and this is a scientific site $\endgroup$ – EnergyNumbers Dec 8 '16 at 16:35
1
$\begingroup$

As @farrenthorpe points out in a comment, the solar cycles are often pointed out as source of climate variability.

The only peer-reviewed paper that I know of is the following: Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications by Nicola Scafetta in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

Nicola Scafetta has oten made the point that "at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations" in the above paper, in several conferences and grey papers. See this for example. But, as far as I know, no-one ever succeeded in reproducing its analysis...

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Scafetta is not a climate scientist. He is a physicist, and a pretty poor one at that, if his papers are anything to go by. Highly selective cherry picking of data, ignorance of the wider picture, dubious understanding of statistical significance, and arbitrary curve fitting without any physical basis. His climate argument is debunked in: skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html . As for "60% of global warming since 1970..... being caused by natural climate oscillations" - solid gold humbug! $\endgroup$ – Gordon Stanger Dec 11 '16 at 4:56
  • $\begingroup$ As I wrote - it's all covered in the above reference. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Stanger Dec 11 '16 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ that wasn't in your original answer.. but ok $\endgroup$ – shamalaia Dec 11 '16 at 12:07
6
$\begingroup$

This stack exchange is about Earth Science. The scientific position is unequivocal in verifying the reality of climate change. One is free to take a contrary skeptical position, but it isn't supported by climate data, ecological data, glaciology, atmospheric and oceanographic science, modelling, theoretical studies, feedback mechanisms, peer review scrutiny, or the basic premise of scientific method. 'Climate-change as a hoax', or 'global conspiracy' has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with the psychology of denial, and the short-term expediency of vested big-business interests, notably in the oil and coal industries. So the reason you don't find genuine science articles refuting climate-change is that there aren't any such scientifically credible articles. This statement will of course prompt an avalanche of responses claiming that there is valid denialist science, which highlights the main problem of the internet - that most non-scientists cannot differentiate between junk science and real science. Consequently, they cannot differentiate between the media's beat-up 'controversy', and the exceptionally strong and consistent consensus of the scientific community. My advice, writing as a climate change Earth-Scientist, is (1) don't take anyone's word unless it is from a professionally peer-reviewed paper, and (2) for starters, go to something like the World-Bank's climate-change knowledge portal, pick some locations at random, and check out the historic and projected temperature data. Both temperature and rainfall projections are given. I suggest that you concentrate on the temperature - the rainfall projections are less reliable.

Short answer - is there a credible anti-climate-change science site - No.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "isn't supported by climate data, ecological data, glaciology, atmospheric and oceanographic science, modelling, theoretical studies, feedback mechanisms, peer review scrutiny, or the basic premise of scientific method" i think is not true. Read cards from the GlobalWarming=good from this national debate university. They point to Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California. debate-central.ncpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Warming.pdf $\endgroup$ – Seth Kitchen Feb 12 '17 at 20:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Seth's comment is completely, utterly, totally 100% wrong, and I stand by my original comments. Like creationists, flat earthers etc., your comments would take more time to respond to that I am willing to spend, but for those who take the trouble to look - with an unbiased mind - the evidence is certainly there. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Stanger Feb 13 '17 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand how 24 pages of evidence can be 100% wrong. Especially since it quotes legit scientific studies from legit sources as commented above. I agree there is certainly evidence of global warming and negative effects, but there is also evidence global warming is good, and/or irrelevant on large scale as cited in the above link. Guess we'll agree to disagree $\endgroup$ – Seth Kitchen Feb 14 '17 at 2:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 24 pages of cherry picked data, misrepresented, distorted, and which fails to take account of contrary evidence can very certainly be wrong. Witness, for example the volumes of drivel pored out by creationists, flat earthers, anti-immunization lobby, the tobacco lobby, coal lobby, etc. In the latter case the American coal industry spent $1/4 Bn on anti-science propaganda, which to this day has turned round American sentiments against rational science. It is quality that counts - not quantity. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Stanger Feb 15 '17 at 5:45
  • $\begingroup$ I agree it is definitely cherry picked data, possibly misrepresented and possibly distorted since I didn't read the papers the facts came from. But had to be cherry picked because we can't fit the hundreds of pages these summaries came from or read them in an 8 min speech. Misrepresented and distorted because we are forced to play devils advocate. Even still facts do exist in this data which do not support global warming. Just one: "it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930" $\endgroup$ – Seth Kitchen Feb 15 '17 at 5:58

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.