Climate change denial

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

you and your fellow acolytes and priests of the religion of human caused climate change really need to stop using the term climate change deniers, that is as faulty and untrue as a statement, as the science that the religion of human caused climate change theory is built upon.

seriously you can not make good science with only a tiny sample of needed and relevant data. the data we have on weather patters is rather like asking 100 people their opinion of something and then saying that, that is what ALL Americans think. we only have decent records of weather data for maybe around 100 years. other than that we only have anecdotal data, and data which is founded on and supported by guesses and theories. not a very source of data at all. then just to top it off what should be very relevant data is completely ignored, and not even factored in.

i remember when i was younger that the climate scare was that the earth was cooling (also our fault), and that we were entering an ice age. then later the scare was that we were instead causing the earth to heat up. known as global warming. then as people started to question not only why the sudden jump from we are entering an ice age, to we are heating up the planet. as well as when people were asking how we can be heating up the planet when we were having colder winters than we had had in awhile. they came up with human caused climate change. ie that humans were causing the climate of the earth to change. and was able to account both for cooling and heating changes.

believers of human caused climate change do like to go on about how the older generations are ignoring the issue. and how we are destroying their childhoods and future. yet it is in a large part due to the fact that all those older people have been through so many of these farces in our lives. rather like the boy who cried wolf, you can only tell lies so many times before people won't believe you, even when you are being truthful. and why should people believe in these half baked schemes when we have heard so many different ones, sometimes that even completely oppose themselves in our lifetimes? especially when the only things they seem to want to do about the problem is to make money off of it, with no real dealing with even their reasonings for the problem.

i do remember when they started to go on about global warming where my doubts came from. they went on and on about things like greenhouse gases from things like cars and cow farts (yes cow farts being bad is not new), trapping the heat and making temperatures rise. but something was missing. something that should have been prominent in all that information of causes being bounced around. and the scary thing is what was missing was HEAT production. something that when talking of changing the temperature you would think would be the NUMBER ONE issue. but nope. something that has always been completely ignored.

think about it. lets use their greenhouse analogy they love so much. that the sun shines in heating up the planet and is trapped by greenhouse gasses, just like the panes of glass trap the sun's heat in a greenhouse. but which would be the more critical factor in the amount of heat in a greenhouse? would it be the sun shining in to be trapped by the glass? or would it be the blast furnace pumping out heat? just about every human activity creates heat. forget the exhaust of cars. every car, bus train, plane, boat etc, that runs on fossil fuel creates tremendous heat. heat that we need to get rid of so it doesn't wreck the engine. that is what a radiator in a car does. it lets the heat be removed from the engine of a car and released into the atmosphere. every home that is heated in colder weather also pumps heat into the atmosphere. remember you mom yelling at you about closing the door since they are not paying to heat the outside? and the younger woke generations (the very same ones complaining about the old people destroying the planet), are even worse than the older generations were. since they need so much air conditioning. even schools that are over 100 years old are now "needing" to be airconditioned. because of "heath issues" from the heat. health issues that were not even an issue (and no the temperatures have not gotten hotter), for 100 years. and how does air conditioning work? quite simply it takes the heat from inside and pumps it out (through a radiator system) into the open atmosphere.

and nothing that they want to do to fix the problem of heating up the planet (remember that golden can't go above what is it 2 degrees to save the planet), will actually do much of anything to the production of the actual heat being produced. electric cars won't help. not only do electric motors create heat. but both charging and discharging their batteries creates heat. enough heat that the batteries can and do self combust (from about the same amount of heat a gas engine creates). but even worse creating that electricity also creates an awful lot of heat. in fact both fuel powered and nuclear power generators actually use steam (heat) to create that electricity. even wind turbines create heat in producing power (and that heat has been known to create fires in them). the fact is everything electrical creates heat, both in the production and use of that electricity. and just guess which generations are the biggest users of electricity and electronics? i know i used a video game console and computer as heaters to stay warm in sub zero temperatures when the heating system went out.

so just how do you human climate change believers plan to combat the biggest issue with climate change, namely the production of heat?

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

The problem is how and to what extent we tackle the problem.

You have one side that would see us all return to the dark ages and live in caves by candlelight. Those who inflate the data for their own political agenda.

Then you have others who see the preservation of industry and our way of living as more important.

It's about finding balance and not over-reacting.

Saving the planet may very well destroy society. Both stances endanger human life.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

So even if everything about climate change is false, why fight against taking care of our environment?

Most don't, I don't litter, I recycle and try to minimize my use of energy and gas. What most fight against is being taxed by some rich guys that live by completely different standards they preach.

If someone can tell me how being taxed is a way to improve the environment, then I'm all ears.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

So even if everything about climate change is false, why fight against taking care of our environment?

If someone can tell me how being taxed is a way to improve the environment, then I'm all ears.

The more you are taxed, the less you will spend, the less you will consume, the less you will own. That's the plan isn't it?

If the world wasn't ran by psychopaths, maybe it would be a feasible idea...

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

So even if everything about climate change is false, why fight against taking care of our environment?

If someone can tell me how being taxed is a way to improve the environment, then I'm all ears.

The more you are taxed, the less you will spend, the less you will consume, the less you will own. That's the plan isn't it?

If the world wasn't ran by psychopaths, maybe it would be a feasible idea...

Well, then Trump putting import taxes on actually combats Climate change. But people do not look at it that way when the orange man does it. The Republicans trying to bring manufacturing jobs back to America actually helps to stop Climate change considerably too.

I wonder what Trump thinks about people, even Republicans, referring to him as orange man. He doesn't seem to be as orange anymore, maybe he has given up on that caroteine crap that they say helps the skin look tan and makes it healthier. Evidently orange is now the new healthy color.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

So even if everything about climate change is false, why fight against taking care of our environment?

If someone can tell me how being taxed is a way to improve the environment, then I'm all ears.

The more you are taxed, the less you will spend, the less you will consume, the less you will own. That's the plan isn't it?

If the world wasn't ran by psychopaths, maybe it would be a feasible idea...

That's the thing. This isn't about saving the planet. It's about overthrowing liberty and capitalism in order to impose top down centrally planned dictatorial states on everyone. The climate is their cassus belli, or excuse to declare war.

Even though AOC and her staff called it the "Green New Deal", they admitted it was nothing more than a total overhaul and remake of the entire economic system, not a climate thing at all.

No one ever explains how total centrally planned economies will save the climate or make any kind of improvement. They can't because look at places like China who have centrally planned, authoritarian states and you can see they are environmental disasters!

a reply to: ketsuko

I do suppose they may want to roll us so far back we look like North Korea, but I'm not at all sure anyone wants to learn to live with so much less we only grow to 5' max and have to figure out how to eat grass and tree bark in the winter because the food supply gives out.

Let's say that it has nothing to do with increasing the health of our environment and everything to do with politics, money, payoffs and other corrupt intentions. Is doing the wrong thing for the right reason that bad? If we were actually able to help the environment by doing it in a less than fair or ethical way would that not be a good thing if we are achieving positive results?

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Not if it's at the expense of people losing their jobs and having no way to provide for their families. It's not the CEO of these companies who will suffer most. It's those at the bottom of the pile that will pay first.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

How would that be positive?

How many billion people are there on the planet, and you are talking about forcibly and harshly putting them into extreme privation for a nebulous benefit to whom exactly?

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly!

It's thanks to industry and its transformation of society and quality of life that we have the luxury of being conscientious about the environment.

Let's see how long the champagne socialists stick to their beliefs when they can't source their Avacados or Tofu.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

So even if everything about climate change is false, why fight against taking care of our environment?

If someone can tell me how being taxed is a way to improve the environment, then I'm all ears.

The more you are taxed, the less you will spend, the less you will consume, the less you will own. That's the plan isn't it?

If the world wasn't ran by psychopaths, maybe it would be a feasible idea...

So this pigouvian tax then causes fuel poverty which causes death when one can't afford to heat their homes.

Fuel poverty and cold homes have caused 9,000 deaths in England and Wales last winter alone, a study from the University College London (UCL) has been able to reveal

a reply to: fernalley

Sure they can, by cutting down trees and setting them on fire. Unless of course we are expected to freeze to death in order to save the planet.

The real threat to the environment is the growing human population. What the arm chair environmentalists fail to understand is that they are promoting the concept of de-population because the reality is that's the only feasible solution to their problem.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: fernalley

Sure they can, by cutting down trees and setting them on fire. Unless of course we are expected to freeze to death in order to save the planet.

The real threat to the environment is the growing human population. What the arm chair environmentalists fail to understand is that they are promoting the concept of de-population because the reality is that's the only feasible solution to their problem.

De-population. I like that idea.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Depends what end of the stick you are holding.

I really don't understand why any one uses the term "Climate change denial". It's probably one of the dumbest and least intellectual honest political phrases I've heard in my life time (and that is saying a lot considering all the dumb things that have come out of politics.) It's made even worse when a core set of phrase users are professional scientists and engineers; these people (myself included) as a whole would never use such dishonest and incorrect categorization in their professional work; but for some reason have no problem using it in common discussion.

I have not met a single person in my life that denies climate change. I'm sure they exist in some small podunk town in the world that time forget. But for the vest vest majority of people, from big cities to tiny villages, the climate and its changes over the melanie is pretty evident.

This is not to say that there aren't people who disagree that humans are the single driving force for current changes in the climate.

This is not to say that there aren't people who might agree that humans are the single driving force for current changes in the climate; but have not yet heard a compelling path forward to correct the situation.

Nether of these groups of people are however denying that the climate changes or that it is not changing now. They are each deigning that "humans are causing climate change" in the case of the first group and deigning "that the current leaders in climate change mitigation have the most effective or efficient solutions to human caused climate change".

So the question is why does a whole group of politically motivated people use such an incorrect phrase to describe their political opinions?

I can think of only one explanation; the reason this incorrect phrase is use in order to disenfranchise a whole group of people from participating in the discussion. It is being used as a means to shut down discussion before it starts. "Look at the other; the other is not as smart as we are, the other is not as compassionate as we are, the other doesn't have as furm a grasp on reality as we do; therefor the other can be ignored, the other can be ridiculed, the other can be dehumanized".

So why this propensity in political discourse to use such incorrect and loaded labels like "Climate change deniers". Why are we so afraid of discussing and debate? Why are we so close minded that we leave no place for scepticism and decent? Are we that unsure of our positions, opinions and beliefs that we must inoculate them so militantly?

Another good reason to deny climate change is that the idea of man-made climate change is engineered profiteering at its finest.

The entirety of man-made climate change has occurred during the industrial revolution - the last 150 years. Earth is billions of years old. The climate has never stopped changing in that entire time. Not once. CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now and with no interference from man. It is supreme arrogance to assume that our pathetic little carbon footprint amounts to much more than a popcorn fart in a tornado as far as Earth is concerned.

When Al Gore stops taking a private jet and gas guzzling limos to speaking engagements on climate change I will start taking it seriously.

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
Let's say that it has nothing to do with increasing the health of our environment and everything to do with politics, money, payoffs and other corrupt intentions. Is doing the wrong thing for the right reason that bad? If we were actually able to help the environment by doing it in a less than fair or ethical way would that not be a good thing if we are achieving positive results?

I know your intentions are good. But look at what you just asked. If a con man takes money that you had under a false pretense that its going to help the world but instead puts it in his bank account, that is indeed BAD and it is wrong! That money could have been used to make a real improvement in clean air and water but it won't be done because the con man took the money.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: fernalley

Sure they can, by cutting down trees and setting them on fire. Unless of course we are expected to freeze to death in order to save the planet.

The real threat to the environment is the growing human population. What the arm chair environmentalists fail to understand is that they are promoting the concept of de-population because the reality is that's the only feasible solution to their problem.

Hard to cut down trees in the middle of the prairies. Not to mention many districts have banned fires. Why is it that heat related deaths are headline news and silence on cold related? I live in a Northern climate and our Federal government put a tax on natural gas (and all fuels) which we use to heat our homes with. Pretty punishing when there are no other choices. One can wear only so many sweaters.