Climate change denial

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

My father had to do a short term job in military housing. One of the biggest lies is recycling. They used to put a huge emphasis on it, but not as much anymore.

YES the climate has changed, this winter has not been very wintry. It's gonna be 65 and thunderstorms on Saturday. But I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that says we are the cause of it.

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

Best response of the day

Finding balance and not over-reacting

Not that I think anyone can solve all of the worlds problems, but if we begin with a healthy balance of the mind, perhaps a step in the right direction.

I have read all responses here but have only responded to a few. I can tell who read my post with a defensive head, formulating their response while reading. I can tell who read the post and understood the message of psychology behind it.

I don't have the answers but I certainly see the problems, and it does indeed begin with humans.

originally posted by: generik
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?

Great response. A lot of good theory and opinion here. I'd love to respond but you have put me in a box with the "climate change believers" and I can't seem to find my way out. So sorry.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
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?

Many people deny that humans have caused climate change, as evidence by many of the responses here. That is what the point is. The denial falls on human cause and effect, not the climate change itself

originally posted by: bluesjr

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.

Yes, I agree my statement didn't come out the way I intended. More specifically, if we were guaranteed that giving up our vehicles would ensure a healthier climate, and I mean absolutely guaranteed - would that be such a bad thing? Or if we all had to give up something even more valuable...

Climate change deniers are the same as flat Earths nutjobs. The science proves climate change beyond any doubt what so ever.

originally posted by: weirdguy
Climate change deniers are the same as flat Earths nutjobs. The science proves climate change beyond any doubt what so ever.

What it doesn't prove is CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change.

a reply to: pteridine

CO2 fits the bill pretty well.


What do you reckon is the cause of the current warming trend?
Is the Sun getting warmer?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: weirdguy
Climate change deniers are the same as flat Earths nutjobs. The science proves climate change beyond any doubt what so ever.

What it doesn't prove is CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change.

Deforestation around much of the world, and heavy relience of outdated coal technology has definetly had and impact, you do realise that right?

a reply to: Phage

Word in the street is that trees are causing global warming or climate change and also they are releasing some sort of toxins in the air so them trees need to go i guess.

a reply to: solve

Not on any street I know of.

Measurements of air extracted from Antarctic ice extend the record of measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 800,000 years ago. Over the past 2000 years, concentrations were around 280 ppm with only small changes until the start of the industrial era, before rapidly increasing.

www.bom.gov.au...

a reply to: Phage

They are claiming that the deforestation of the boreal regions will slow down the temperature from rising.

I predict they will test this theory. lots of other things can be gained from this move also if it does not work out.

a reply to: solve

They are claiming that the deforestation of the boreal regions will slow down the temperature from rising.

Who are "they?" Exactly?
Can you provide a source?

a reply to: Phage

Just "they", you know them, from down the street.

a reply to: Phage

But its all weird you know Bobby? He said they already tested this in a WRF model simulation and it looked good, but now when all these dudes are cutting these trees down to make room for crops,and making snow mirrors, all of the sudden they are being demonized for acting on the original plan.

I am a man made climate change denier. However I am one of the most carbon neutral of my peers. Yet I am pilloried by them by not swallowing the old "97% of scientists say" crap. I work in the renewable sector where my contrarianism is seen as heresy.

I don't believe co2 is the devil but my mantra is that we all should seek to reduce waste and pollution. Sick of people who just talk the talk. Just shut the hell up and reduce your own footprint and waste profile and things will get better.

Buy local. Reduce plastic. Quit buying artificial fibres and loads of clothes. And just quit your bleating and finger pointing, you self righteous collection of attention seekers.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

That’s the summary I took from your original post.

As you said some people read the first paragraph and automatically jump to conclusions about your position.

I found it to be well informed and a good critique of the subject. S+F

We could debate it until the cows come home, er ... no, no we can't. Cows fart and that's evil even though there were far more hoofed ungulates roaming around farting in the not so distant past which certainly should have destroyed the planet, but I digress ...

The long and short of it is that taxing people into the dark ages is not an answer for any of it, but those are the only so-called solutions anyone proposes coupled with:

1. Mandate energy X

2. ???

3. Earth saved!

It's all well and good to think that if only you pass laws mandating that this or that energy will be used, then magically it will become economically feasible and practical just because you made law decreeing it so, but that's not actually how it works.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

CO2 fits the bill pretty well.


What do you reckon is the cause of the current warming trend?
Is the Sun getting warmer?

Look at the plot of time temperature

www.longrangeweather.com...

Warm and cold periods were present long before the industrial revolution. CO2 seems to trail warm periods.

The good news is that the earth is "greening" according to NASA satellite data
climate.nasa.gov...