Liberal Left DENY Natural Climate Change!

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

The climate does change naturally. We have ice-core records going back in time that show quick changes in the earth's temperature, before human activity caused any impact. The temperature has been shown to increase or decrease 10 degrees or more in just a few decades, all naturally.

Yeah no one in academia or the field of climatology has made such a claim of denying the natural occurrences of climate change through our earth's history...Unless you can actually cite an example of some one who holds such a view,your premise is absurd.

Human activity is increasing the rate at which the earth's temperature rises or decreases. In short it is increasing the rate at which the climate changes in a way that won't make it habitable for human life and most other organisms in which we share this beautiful planet with. I'd prefer not to speed up that process thank you very much.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
By claiming that human activity is the ONLY factor that changes the climate, they are DENYING real science, and DENYING natural climate change.

I don't know anyone who's claiming that climate change is caused ONLY by human activity. Show me a credible person in the climate change discussion and who's part of the left, who's claiming that ONLY human activity is responsible.

That's a trick question, everybody knows that the initial hysteria was AGW...that being our fault it doesn't matter where the cry came from..well it does, it came from the scientific community, while the politicos in no time at all saw the Singing Frog at some time or the other,

You get the drift, let's not intellectualise the original premise.

originally posted by: smurfy
That's a trick question,

I fail to see how asking the OP to provide evidence of his own statement is a trick question.

You get the drift, let's not intellectualise the original premise.

I don't think there is any risk in this conversation becoming intellectual in any way.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Rocker2013

I find it fascinating that environmental issues are so bitterly divided into either left or right perspectives.

You know that must mean the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is. step away from americans and listen to what scientists say elsewhere in the world where they dont give a toss about american politicians.

So, US scientists are not to be trusted ? Funny thing about that is, look how much they have contributed. Or , are you saying it is only "American" scientists that go against man-made global warming ? So , now is it a world vs the US ? Thats a fairly encompassing statement you have made there pardner. Hmmm , wonder where NOAA is?

a reply to: Gothmog

Think the comment was more about that if you want to see how it is viewed outside of our political structure then look out side of the states.
Since it was a response to how we are so divided on the issue here.

a reply to: Sremmos80
Thats just one of the points. That again is an encompassing statement. So , it is not in the political arena outside of the US ? One example : Australia.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
The fact CO2 holds more heat then nitrogen and oxygen is not debatable....

The fact we are producing oodles of CO2 is not debatable.


What effect that will have on the planet, is only fair question.

Then I would ask you're opinion on the 3% of climate scientists saying we're actually nearer to C02 levels being too low to sustain life. Fair question.

There's too much debate on this for me to even keep up- but I've always wondered...

We add greenhouse gasses - Fact.
We burn fuel- which dumps heat energy, measurable BTUs, into the environment- Fact.
We take forests, level them, and turn them into parking lots and buildings with colors that naturally absorb more photons and convert them into heat energy- Fact.

From these basic points, there's no way we don't have any impact on global warming.


Having said that, it might be headed that way anyway, and our interference is marginal.

Either way, we're not doing ourselves any favors ignoring the facts. We might as well be flies bred in a jar- pull your # together, humanity. We have bigger problems to deal with than figuring out who is at fault.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Rocker2013

I find it fascinating that environmental issues are so bitterly divided into either left or right perspectives.

You know that must mean the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is. step away from americans and listen to what scientists say elsewhere in the world where they dont give a toss about american politicians.

So, US scientists are not to be trusted ? Funny thing about that is, look how much they have contributed. Or , are you saying it is only "American" scientists that go against man-made global warming ? So , now is it a world vs the US ? Thats a fairly encompassing statement you have made there pardner. Hmmm , wonder where NOAA is?

I was answering a question about someone who is basically saying they dont trust american science given its been corrupted by american politics...so...stop looking in america and instead look globally..look at countries that give no care what america is saying..see what their scientists are saying if you dont believe us based sciences.
Then it becomes more difficult to spin narratives..you can simply say Party X bought the american scientists..but you cant say they also bought off scientists worldwide

It's a strong indictment of the poor level of understanding of science held by the general public that some of the posts in this thread have received so many stars.


And why does the American right get so hysterical about denouncing climate change science as a 'liberal conspiracy!' Nobody else couches the climate change debate in terms of 'left' and 'right', only the American right. It's bizarre.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes that is a good list of the usual red herrings and strawman arguments.

My list is just as valid and realistic as anyone else's solutions.

not all solutions/opinions are created equal.

"I think the earth is flat."

Vs

"I think the earth is round."

Both solutions to questions are not equally true, no matter how either part feels about it...

originally posted by: Painterz
It's a strong indictment of the poor level of understanding of science held by the general public that some of the posts in this thread have received so many stars.


And why does the American right get so hysterical about denouncing climate change science as a 'liberal conspiracy!' Nobody else couches the climate change debate in terms of 'left' and 'right', only the American right. It's bizarre.

Because they (the GOP) have ignored the issue while the democrats have been building an infrastructure to siphon off tax dollars to them and their Contributors. So they are trying to cut off there ability to campaign against them later. Same reason they fight a war on unions.

But instead of attacking the policy or corruption planned, they take a page from the big tobacco playbook and just deny, deny, deny.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
I can prove, using basic math, that the apocalyptic man-made global-warming predictions are a fabricated hoax

*awaits math*

-10 + 2 = -8

*closes thread*

Nailed it.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

I'm very open minded. I want to believe what the cool and smart people believe, I really do, but when climate predictions don't make any sense using basic math, why should I trust any scientist? 97% of the people I know are corrupt. I could guarantee that 97% of the people I have met in my life could be bribed or threatened to spend their lives making up fake science. I know I would, but no one's ever offered me $ to make up fake science, or to keep my mouth shut, so I'm here trying to announce the most obvious flaw in the apocalyptic man-made global-warming predictions.

"The science is settled." = It doesn't even make any sense in basic math, but the whole world believes in it, lol.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
The fact CO2 holds more heat then nitrogen and oxygen is not debatable....

The fact we are producing oodles of CO2 is not debatable.


What effect that will have on the planet, is only fair question.

Then I would ask you're opinion on the 3% of climate scientists saying we're actually nearer to C02 levels being too low to sustain life. Fair question.

Considering we have more CO2 now then ever in history..or since the Oxygen mass extinction, and life has always flourished...I would have to call BS...undeniably we make more than anytime in human history.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Any denier thread that starts off with the strawman that the left doesn't believe in natural climate change should be completely ignored as it is based on a faulty premise.

The left believes in natural climate change AND man-made climate change, not one or the other. Get it right. Sheesh.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
The fact CO2 holds more heat then nitrogen and oxygen is not debatable....

The fact we are producing oodles of CO2 is not debatable.


What effect that will have on the planet, is only fair question.

Then I would ask you're opinion on the 3% of climate scientists saying we're actually nearer to C02 levels being too low to sustain life. Fair question.

Which scientists would these be? Where are they saying this? And what data makes what they are saying credible?

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Then it becomes more difficult to spin narratives..you can simply say Party X bought the american scientists..but you cant say they also bought off scientists worldwide

Except they DO do that...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Then it becomes more difficult to spin narratives..you can simply say Party X bought the american scientists..but you cant say they also bought off scientists worldwide

Except they DO do that...

If a american political party, or any industry, can buy all scientists of all nations, all corporations, all facts, to include independant unaffiliated countries, then props..no point in trying to defend against it given its literally the world conspiracy against you and a few others.
...
alternatively, maybe the scientists are all just reviewing facts and concluding the answer most likely..regardless of political desires.


When I was a kid, there was 2 camps. 1 camp said global warming is starting up, and in a few decades there will be all sorts of crazy stuff happening. extreme weather, mass droughts, floodings, extreme seasons, etc. the other camp said nope..no such thing as global warming.
many years later, now its accepted by (most) that it is happening, so now the argument switched from denial of it even happening to denial that man can be accountable for it..its natural, a normal cycle, etc.
I see even this starting to slowly shift due to the overwhelming global consensus of data being shoved at deniers..now the new conversation is that ok, maybe mankind is somewhat responsible, but its not a bad thing..it is actually good. longer growing seasons, more lush forests from extra carbon, faster growing of said forests, etc.
every step of the way it is blocked..science prevails.
this isn't a reasonable discussion, its a few corporations and politicians trying to drag their feet for the profitability of pollution creators, oil companies, etc. follow the money here, not of who gains if the world goes green, but instead of who profits if we dont.

a reply to: SaturnFX
Lol. I think you missed my point. I'm referring to deniers who will insist that it is a conspiracy and ALL the scientists in the world are in on it just because.