Climate Change Denial: Why?

I literally made an account to say, how the **** can some of you ******* idiots even plausibly deny that humans are causing Earth irreparable harm. Sure the Earth goes through cycles, and yes there have been great climate swings in the past, but what humans have done since the industrial revolution has caused more harm in an almost impossibly short amount of time (compared to 'naturally occuring' climate shifts) than seems imaginable. Extinction level events killed off quite a few species in the past, but humans have driven almost as many species off the face of the Earth in a fraction of the time. Entire ecosystems, entire biomes, have been obliterated in a single human lifespan and you ***holes sit at your computer and say it's a way to gain government power and money? The only place where we know for sure there is life and you worry about the government getting more power and money? I believe in crazy concepts, but to drag the government into your disgusting and dispicable lifestyle that you take for granted, to hold desperately onto a few extra bucks to buy your next beer or smokes, to pay rent or mortgage, is absolutely despicable.

Go to the Amazon. Go to the Great Barrier Reef. Go to Mexico City or Beijing. Humans breed like cockroaches and are twice as disgusting, yet it seems fine to blame the government for trying to keep a handle on our psychopathic selfish tendancies? Sometimes I hope for the sake of every other species on the planet that humans actually are anihilated, and in a timely fashion. Go look at the beauty in the birds and the trees and in the oceans, and ask yourself if your pathetic existence is worth its assured destruction.

Now, the government using its power to ensure that only those in power survive an impending extinction level event or increased climate change is plausible. Using genocide and social programming to aid in their ultimate goal in survival is almost concrete. But to pretend that they are faking that they are terrified of their human fragility is absurd in the highest. Madness driven by fear is the best fuel known to man.

a reply to: Jonjonj

So... carbon emission deals are a bloddy scam just like this green energy rush might be a good opportunity to make a buck with more.. scams? So what? And you think the fossil fuel industry wouldn't use false data and deny simple facts to make a buck with... ah forget about it.

We're still talking about carbon dioxide and its effect on the climate is pretty obvious. Even if we go further back than 2800 years, that's the point.

WTF I try to say? I was just provoking our mason to re-evaluate an expressed opinion, that's all. And it was a pun regarding the ignorance I sensed right there in that comment, written somewhere on that Shell platform out in the ocean. Looks pretty straight forward from my perspective at the shore.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And you think the fossil fuel industry wouldn't use false data and deny simple facts to make a buck with... ah forget about it.

Dude, read what I have been saying...

Never mind, carry on I guess...

a reply to: FightingBuddha

I literally made an account to say, how the **** can some of you ******* idiots even plausibly deny that humans are causing Earth irreparable harm

That one statement alone is one reason for denying man made climate change.....

a reply to: schuyler

Nice pictures. What source. You got a link to share?

I realized that conservatives may be deluding themselves with false data. Reproduced below, this chart suggests that there has not been an increase in global temperature changes over the last 4500 or so years. The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words "Nomanic Time" in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann? Well keep reading if you are at all interested.
...
Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website www.longrangeweather.com... and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather ...
Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming?

a reply to: Gothmog

Have you been away from your keyboard in the past decade? Been outside of your place of comfort? Denying something based on anothers outrage is almost as absurd as the initial denial, and much more so than the outrage it was based at!

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

No - all I see is a list of reasons you THINK people deny climate change.

Then for heaven's sake - enlighten me!! What do people think?

a reply to: FightingBuddha

Thank you very much for joining in.

a reply to: amazing

How can millions of scienctists and science industry staff all be wrong...or....worse....How can they all be in on the biggest conspiracy known to man?

The millions of scientists did not use their Bibles to make their charts like the ones posted.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: PublicOpinion

And you think the fossil fuel industry wouldn't use false data and deny simple facts to make a buck with... ah forget about it.

Dude, read what I have been saying...

Never mind, carry on I guess...

I get you, as most here would.

I'll be more inclined to take note when Leo DiCaprio, Algore and others stop flying (Video calls exist boys phone it in if you care so deeply). And also when the solution doesn't fill the pockets of the elite.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: FightingBuddha

I literally made an account to say, how the **** can some of you ******* idiots even plausibly deny that humans are causing Earth irreparable harm

That one statement alone is one reason for denying man made climate change.....

...or for crapping into your pants for that matter.



Say high to our newbie and cut him some slack, will ya?



Hi Buddha!

That's nothing, you haven't seen politics or 9/11 yet and I don't think you should.

a reply to: smurfy

That's great, I don't. Care to elaborate?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Of course you don't. Man isn't responsible at all and even if so we couldn't change a thing either. Right?

Is that what I said Captain Hyperbole? Read it again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Sorry to break it to you, but flat out denial is just flat out denial. Which is fine if you work for Shell, I guess...

Nothing to break to me, I want it to get warmer and I agree that it is getting warmer, I just said I do no think it has as much to do with humans as ascribed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

... which is fine if you work for Shell, I guess. Again.

Or is there any reason you could point out now? I mean... why do you deny the possibility? Any alternative hypothesis or something?

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: schuyler

But generally I tend to believe the scientists when it comes to climate change/global warming. I use nasa a lot, but then I dig deeper and find almost every single university science department at every single university and college in the world believes the same thing. It doesn't mean that they are correct...

but if they are all wrong, then ...well it boggles the mind. How can millions of scienctists and science industry staff all be wrong...or....worse....How can they all be in on the biggest conspiracy known to man?

The answer to that is multi-fold. The first element is government dominance of scientific research. It's a "follow the money" issue because scientists, i.e. "researchers at universities, advance by obtaining grants. The bigger the grant, the faster you get tenure. Now, have you read some of these grant procurement requests? They're amazing. Here's a typical refrain:

"The purpose of this grant is to show the data for climate change. The successful grantee must obtain data that shows climate change and follow up with a presentation that proves man made CO2 emissions are causing warmer temperatures."

They don't say it quite like that so overtly, but that is CLEARLY the message being sent. If you want to get this grant, you must prove climate change is man made. That's the message.

The second element is political correctness within the scientific community. Once an idea takes root, it's impossible to dislodge, and if you don't toe the party line, you don't get promoted and are drummed from the field. Have you ever been "in" academia? I can tell you that it is brutal. It's as bad as being a lawyer. There is a tremendous amount of back stabbing and one-upmanship. We'd like to think that science is beyond all that, but it is not. I'll give you a couple of examples.

One is plate tectonics. We now take this for granted as established scientific theory, but when it first was proposed, by a meteorologist named Wegener, he met violent opposition that such a thing was impossible. After all, he was primarily a meteorologist, not a geologist, so what did he know? He was basically drummed from the field and died without his theory being accepted. Over time it became more and more obvious that he was correct, and today we accept that he was right from the very first and forget the opposition and ridicule he endured.

Another is Hugh Everett, a brilliant mathematician and physicist who proposed the "Many Worlds Theory" that essentially said for every decision two universes were formed, one with Decision A and one with Decision B. Now I'm with everyone else in thinking that has a high strangeness factor, but he insisted one had to follow the math, and the math said it was true. He faced so much ridicule that he was drummed out of the profession. he wound up in government and was the architect of the MAD theory. He kind of gave up, allowed himself to get overweight, and died at a young age.

Want some more examples? How about the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth? People often attribute that to religion, but but was nothing of the sort. It was the "science" of the day that said that, complete with complex "epicycles" of the planets to explain retrograde motion. This wasn't the Church talking, It was contemporary science of the day.

It happens over and over and over again. The established science turns out in retrospect to have been completely wrong, and it is kept wrong by a scientific establishment that really doesn't want to be challenged. So when you say, "Every major science department says" what you are REALLY saying is that "There are a couple hundred real climate scientists in the entire world. Thousands of scientists who say they agree have NEVER actually studied the subject; they just go along with it and proclaim its truthfulness, and if they were to say, "I beg to differ" they would never get tenure."

Faith in science today is like faith in Jesus. You REALLY need to look at how science is done today before you believe everything anyone who can label themselves a "scientist" says.

a reply to: smurfy

Yep, not much else to say here, opinions are unwelcome.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
... which is fine if you work for Shell, I guess. Again.

I work for an LED fixture manufacturer which is kind of a green company last time I looked at our literature. Do you know how they work Captain? Do you know why they are green?

Or is there any reason you could point out now? I mean... why do you deny the possibility?

Mostly due to the bulls*** carbon tax scams looking to enrich private citizens at the expense of other citizens.

originally posted by: FightingBuddha
a reply to: Gothmog

Have you been away from your keyboard in the past decade? Been outside of your place of comfort? Denying something based on anothers outrage is almost as absurd as the initial denial, and much more so than the outrage it was based at!

No , that remark shows the mentality and the exact opposite approach that is needed. Come on, if you dont believe you are some kinda **** idiot ? Is that remark even on any kind of an intellectual level ??

With that it is game over and you have no tokens

a reply to: Jonjonj

Are they really or got BS called out instead? Not that you were in the midst of an debate until you've dicided to pull the 'reading comprehension issue' from a list of possible assaults, presumably to bail out the fast and whiny way.

Nope, must be me. Silly PubOps pulled off another PsyOps. Fricken hilarious, I love it!