I'll give you 2 reasons.

a) published data tends to see corrections from sensors and methodology which take several years to work out the fine details. (This isn't an attack this is science) Which means always take yesterday's numbers with more scepticism than 2yr ago. (This is making no statement of any data you're looking at or any trend you claim to see)

b) a field dominated by modelling needs data to back it up, otherwise the conversation would be, "Why is the LHC failing to find strong theory which is absolutely there" vs "I wonder if the modelling is correct based on..." This is a certain level of maturity that certain sciences are only starting to reach after playing in the ballpark of "let's go model my idea and make a press release which will just so happen to help my funding".

Yes sea level temps are rising, absolute numbers are still difficult to come by though and last UN summary doc I read still put things at 5C global average over a century. (Yes still horrifically catastrophic for the wrong people, but I'm also not in charge)

▲

zug_zug 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I doubt it has anything to do with data-quality, I'd be surprised if even 10% of climate denialists have studied the numbers. Remember >20% of US citizens are still creationists, a lot of people aren't emotionally ready to believe scary things, and maybe they never will be.

▲

vscode-rest 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I take it you have data against creationism?

Or that it is somehow less “scary”?

▲

rob_c an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

And believing the world ending as in "the day after tomorrow" was the "still mask wearing" of the 2010s. Fear.

▲

zug_zug 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

Feels like a really weak bad-faith take.

I guess you're trying to draw a false-equivalency between taking a problem extra seriously and denying/perpetuating it? However taking a problem too seriously doesn't harm people, if you want to wear a mask out of an abundance of caution you won't kill anybody else.

Also nobody believed the world was going to end in two days, that feels like a disingenuous talking point. If somebody literally believed the world would end in < 10 years they'd likely quit their job, spend all their savings, etc.

If your point is that you've met ~15 individuals in your life who were obnoxious/self-righteous/unlikeable about their attempts to make the world better -- congrats every movement has that. But it can't distract from the fact that one thing is true and the other is false, and anybody who tries to focus more on the stereotypes of the individuals in a movement than whether it's true or not is only creating noise.

	▲	rob_c 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No I'm talking about proper healthy science not blind trust. Please don't confuse discussion with argument it's disingenuous and best I can say is look inwards.

▲

HumblyTossed an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No, most of these people consciously or otherwise, just want/need to be contrarians. Look at flat Earthers. There is no way any sane person would say the earth is flat.

	▲	rob_c 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Please don't bring up another thing started by idiot scientists for a laugh to laugh at stupid people. You have no idea what it's like dealing with the "just open your eyes" and "what else are they hiding" tier of pseudo-intellectualism enabled by nu-media. There are reasons to be sceptical which are set in reason and it's worth not throwing that out with the bath water. Even if the bath water is full of low iq bitchute comments...