I think of my experience with real world technical people, maybe 2-4% are denialists but those are also very vocal (enough to saturate a place like this). Another 4-10% are under the sway, and I think that's a fairly reasonable assumption since in Sweden the party that represent those that would vote for the current US admin manages to get about 20% of the electorate (although possibly more in the younger age groups).
It's also a reminder that this is a well known public forum at this point, and those are always targeted by propaganda (or have gotten a large enough mass that denialists have gotten a large enough foothold).
Back in 97-00 slashdot was an amazing site, just a gathering of inquisitive people posting cool stuff. Over the years it degenerated with more hateful stuff despite valiant efforts to adjust moderation causing early people to drop off, this place was amazing back in 2015 when I joined and the work done to keep it somewhat tidy after some 18 years is actually impressive, but I'm also feeling a lot of the same types of comments increase that made slashdot a less interesting place to begin with.
I’ve never met any reasonably intelligent person in real life that denied climate change, of any kind whatsoever, is happening…
There are many people who doubt whether the majority of the observed effect is directly human caused however.
Of course whether it’s human caused directly or human caused via 10 degrees of seperation matters little to future generations… but someone, somewhere, needs to actually do the work and provide credible rock solid proof for each and every step along the way.
Otherwise the latter group will keep on growing in size and influence.
The sheer amount of evidence that the effect is indeed predominantly human-caused is so vast and convincing that at this point, failure to accept it reads like closed minds repeating the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
It's been below 300 ppm for at least the last 800,000 years, had now increased to over 400 ppm in a pattern that directly maps to the industrial revolution, radiocarbon dating traces the carbon in the atmosphere to "old" carbon like that from fossil fuels, and the known sources of human emissions adequately explain the increase.
An argument based on likelihoods and probabilities is not anywhere close to rock solid proof, since the credibility of the folks determining those is what’s doubted in the first place.
There is only 1 HN user who replied with any link whatsoever (at the time of writing this)… so literally not even multiple “people”.
Edit: If you are geniuinely experiencing some kind of vision problems, such that a second user appears to have linked some kind of evidence underneath my comment, I recommend logging off and seeking help for mental/eye issues.
If you really don’t believe the other half of the comment exists…
” Of course whether it’s human caused directly or human caused via 10 degrees of seperation matters little to future generations… but someone, somewhere, needs to actually do the work and provide credible rock solid proof for each and every step along the way.
Otherwise the latter group will keep on growing in size and influence.”
Someone linked you overwhelming evidence, then you asked for "proof". What is wrong with what they linked you? Why don't you believe that people cause climate change directly? What does "10 degrees of separation mean" ?
You were given a link and a synopsis explanation of why there is consensus of climate change being directly man made. What is so unclear that you're claiming it's gibberish?
This seems like you're just writing back what I've written to you, but you still won't say what's wrong with all the evidence on climate change you were given.
It's also a reminder that this is a well known public forum at this point, and those are always targeted by propaganda (or have gotten a large enough mass that denialists have gotten a large enough foothold).
Back in 97-00 slashdot was an amazing site, just a gathering of inquisitive people posting cool stuff. Over the years it degenerated with more hateful stuff despite valiant efforts to adjust moderation causing early people to drop off, this place was amazing back in 2015 when I joined and the work done to keep it somewhat tidy after some 18 years is actually impressive, but I'm also feeling a lot of the same types of comments increase that made slashdot a less interesting place to begin with.