Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I live in the U.K and forget renewable technologies. We've got plenty of Shale to frack and our Government is going to pay all the people living in the areas where fracking will take place a £20,000 bribe, er I mean share of the rewards.

So....you're trolling... right? LOL!!!

Fracking causes earthquakes. Oil rigs cause oil spills. etc

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am not saying we have no impact, you are saying I am saying that. I am saying that the anthropogenic idea of climate change is not the only model that should be looked at, but IT IS the only model being looked at!!!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

None of that is going to influence climate change, it will just make you feel better.

The Question should be. "Why is it easier to believe right wing news blogs over NASA?"

Let's see...who is more likely to deceive me? Propaganda outlets or actual Scientific organizations?

I'm gonna go with trusting NASA and most other scientific organizations. For the record, I don't counter Rush Limbaugh or Breitbart with Huff post and MSNBC on Climate Science, I go to the source actual scientists.

a reply to: amazing

Lol NASA?! Pretty sure that stands for Never A Straight Answer

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: amazing

Lol NASA?! Pretty sure that stands for Never A Straight Answer

But they employ actual scientists...and if you can't believe them on one thing, how can you believe them on anything?

I'd still be more inclined to believe a scientist talking about Climate change then a blogger or talking head. You know what I mean?

a reply to: Baldryck

I'd like to feel better. Is that okay with you?

Because, it seems like you don't feel at all well, and don't even care.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


I want to ask everyone on here who denies Climate Change this question, so here goes:

not many here who deny that the climate changes...I think you must be talking about something else from that lofty perch, maybe you meant AGW, which is a load of carbolics, or maybe you mean the 'facts' cleaned from all those temperature guages that are in all the wrong places, airports, asphalt, air conditioning, car parks, heat sinks...even those guages that have been there for a century or more, while the urban sprawl grew up round them.
Of course, there is a big programme now on to close them down, and they are now working like blue arsed flies to make them disappear, while in the meantime we'll have to sit and look at even more modelling cartoons to fill the gaps..that should keep the kettle boiling for another thirty years or so.

a reply to: smurfy

not many here who deny that the climate changes...I think you must be talking about something else from that lofty perch, maybe you meant AGW

Rude.

Not on a lofty perch, asking a question.

The question is "if you think Climate Change is fiction, WHY?"
Did not include "do you like me? Does my butt look fat in this avy?"

Whether or not it is "Anthropomophically" caused is sort of beside the point. What can we do to postpone the inevitable? How can we fight the fire? How can we hold off the flood?

Or - I guess you all can just sit around not caring and just calling people liars.

No doubt the climate is changing. However, there is a large amount of fraud in its reporting, including scientific fraud. You have to ask yourself, why is this? Why are they cheating? Why is it necessary to cheat? When you actually study the issue, rather than just buy off on what the media has told you, you find some amazing stuff. The computer models that predict this vast climate change have never really done a good job of predicting. Take a look at The Hockey Stick Illusion for a good example. Don't just ignore it; read it. Then come back here and tell us how nuts we are for not believing the crap we've been told. Here's just one example out of hundreds:



Now you might say to yourself, "So? All the other lines show an increase. One line was wrong." And you'd be right, but it is more subtle than that. WHY DID THEY HIDE THE DECLINE? The answer is because they would have to explain it if they left it in. So WHY DID THEY NOT WANT TO EXPLAIN IT? Were they just lazy and did not want to be bothered? The answer is because it is a very special line. That green line that got hidden because it went DOWN, not up, represents tree ring data. If you know ANYTHING about this, you know the conclusion already. If you say, "So?" at this point then you completely missed it (the point.)

You probably know about tree rings, right? They get thicker during a growth spurt, which is when it is either hotter in Summer (or moist). They get thin in Winter when it is colder, and also in a very dry climate. Moisture and heat are the two driving factors to the thickness of tree rings. OK. So when "scientists" attempt to measure how hot it was in the past, how do they do it? There were no thermometers 10,000 years ago, or 100,000. So they used a "proxy," a "stand-in" which, in this case, is tree-ring data. So they drilled a few trees in Siberia and the American southwest, correlated all the tree rings, and came up with how "hot" it was way back when.

OK so far? But they had to prove the tree-ring data was accurate so they matched the tree-ring data against known temperatures for the 1800s, where they had both thermometers and tree rings. It all correlated so they said, "Hot damn! We can use tree rings from thousands of years ago!" and they reported that yup, climate was not as hot back then, therefore "Climate Change!"

Except one small problem. That tree-ring data in modern times, in the 20th century, SHOWED A DECLINE IN TEMPERATURES when we know, because of our modern, accurate thermometers, there was an increase. In other words, the tree-ring data for modern times was WRONG, yet there's that green line on the graph headed down. And what that means is, if the tree ring data for TODAY is wrong, how can you use it as a proxy for the temperature thousands of years ago? Would it not also be wrong back then, too?

And THAT'S why they hid the decline. It is an inconvenient truth they did not want to explain.

Hey, want another one? Remember Al Gore's Graph? He has a huge red graph that plots CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature over thousands of years. When he puts up his slide it covers several walls. It's huge. So the way he manages it he puts up the graph and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is flat out obvious. You don't need any esoteric equations to see that the two are, indeed correlated. So he then makes a flip remark about them obviously NOT being correlated, and everybody laughs. Obvious: Climate Change!

Only one small problem. When famous Climate Scientist Al Gore compiled this graph, the data points were coarse because there was no ability to fine tune them. But since then the data has been made finer, and when this was done it was discovered that Al Gore got his graph backwards. CO2 and temperature were still, indeed, correlated--rather perfectly, in fact, but the rise in CO2 happened about 900 years AFTER the temperature rose. CO2 did not CAUSE the temperature to rise, temperatures rising CAUSED out-gassing of CO2. CO2 was the RESULT of the temperature rising.

That's just two out of hundreds of examples. Read the book I cited above and educate yourself. Then maybe you can speculate as to why we have been lied to. Maybe the results of that Kool Aid you drank will begin to wear off. We can only hope.

I have said this before, but I will say it again.

We are destroying our oceans, our forests, our air, animal life, etc ETC ETC. That is proven. Whether this behavior is causing the temperatures to change is IRRELEVANT.

At this rate everything will be mined, used up, and polluted beyond repair leaving this one and only planet we call home uninhabitable. Something NEEDS to be done to correct these issues. There needs to be renewable sources of energy, and people need to stop polluting and raping the earth of its finite resources.

Saying it will lower YOUR standard of living by changing your behavior is as selfish as it gets.

In 200 years people will look back on our generation and say through their gas masks "holy s--t I cannot believe the people of the past were so selfish and dragged their feet solving the impending doom headed towards the planet. They KNEW this was going to happen and they did nothing. Such horrible human beings they must have been to sentence such a miserable fate to future generations".

a reply to: amazing

Agreed but NASA isn't exactly known for telling people the truth either.

I can commend them and acknowledge their intelligence - but that doesn't make them infallible nor does it make them impervious to the same kind of lobbying and throwing around of money that runs literally every other government agency.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What a clown show of an OP, answer me in 6 words or less, LOL.
I can answer you in half that:
BECAUSE ITS BULL#

Okay, I'll look at all of your sources.

The point remains - everyone seems to agree that the climate IS INDEED changing. Good.





So now, the question is (instead):

If you believe the climate is, in fact changing, why do you think it's okay for humans to ignore it?

Why is it fine if we do not do what we can to mitigate it, to reduce the potential harm it is sure to cause if we do nothing?

Here, again, is a "multiple choice" chart to make it easier for members to respond.

Here are some examples of answers that mean something (updated):

Money
Conspiracy
Indifference
Not my problem
I don't care
It's a stupid myth
Nothing we can do
I give up
People pick on non-deniers
Science is stupid
I like sweltering heat and floods
I hope everyone dies except me
Satan is doing this
Humans are innocent of this
Don't blame me
Oh well, what's one more mine?
I dump waste into the rivers
I dump waste into the oceans
I don't care about wildlife
Fish are stupid
What difference would it make?
Alex Jones said so
It snowed in May
It's too late
You can't do anything to help
Stupid ocean is stupid who cares?
Coral reefs are fakers

a reply to: primespickle

We are destroying our oceans, our forests, our air, animal life, etc ETC ETC. That is proven. Whether this behavior is causing the temperatures to change is IRRELEVANT.

THANK YOU!!!!!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: smurfy

not many here who deny that the climate changes...I think you must be talking about something else from that lofty perch, maybe you meant AGW

Rude.

Not on a lofty perch, asking a question.

The question is "if you think Climate Change is fiction, WHY?"
Did not include "do you like me? Does my butt look fat in this avy?"

Everybody knows climate change is not fiction, it seems that you are the only one that feels the need to have other people enlarge on it.
And yes you were being rude by being presumptious about other people, unless you were talking to yourself of course. So are you talking about AGW or not? I've given my reply, perhaps you could reciprocate, I promise I won't be a cross bunny!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Jonjonj

Can you please address the overall topic? Yes, tornado activity fluctuates. So does earthquake activity.

But why do you insist that humans are not having any impact? Because - you are looking at like, five minutes ago on the cosmic scale. If you start with a weak patient, you're glad to see breathing and consciousness.

But you originally said this:

I was talking about in my neighborhood, my specific coordinates Yes - I live in tornado alley. Have done for 50 years. THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

That is why I used the tornado statistics, because you said things had changed, and now you are asking me to stay on topic.

Ok then, no worries, I am disappointed though, I thought you wanted a debate.

originally posted by: primespickle
In 200 years people will look back on our generation and say through their gas masks "holy s--t I cannot believe the people of the past were so selfish and dragged their feet solving the impending doom headed towards the planet.

Actually, I think they will be looking back with their transhuman eyes from a semi-socialistic robot supported utopia and say, 'Thank God they got all this stuff figured out for us so I can play Pokémon Go in spectacular virtual universes and not get off my ass ever again.'

Or something like that.

a reply to: KEACHI

Wow, look at that! You answered in six words!

Thanks for playing.

So - but....see: it isn't bullsnip. But okay. We already knew you thought that, I'd like to know WHY you think that it is bullsnip.

Can you toss me the ball?