What do climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists want?

OnlyAplus

There’s a few threads around knocking the idea of man-made climate change and a lot of passionate arguing. But in all the arguments and “fact checking” and asserting that environmental regulations are not needed because some guy on YouTube claims that temperatures raised in the past, none of them explain to neutral observers such as myself why any of that matters, even if it is true.

The EURO 6 emissions regulations just got launched recently, so we’ll all be spending less at the pumps and breathing cleaner air as the national car fleet gets upgraded. How could anyone justify undoing any of that? I don’t like spending money on feul and I definitely don’t like either breathing in or being the cause of anyone else, particularly the frail, breathing any more NO, SO2, and carbon nanoparticles than any of us absolutely have to!

Ditto smog, does anyone remember how bad Dublin’s air was in the early 80’s? How can anyone justify bitching about climate change being a potential myth when we have the current situation where the entire population, from babies to OAPs, from the strongest buck to the weakest weed, are all breathing far cleaner air in 2018 compared to 30 years ago?

What do these lads want? Why is climate change denial such a passion for them?

I have read some of the debates and it appears that most of it is just bogged down in both sides arguing about some detail or other rather than explaining what the end goal they’re fighting for will look like.

However, environmentalists are at least upfront about what their end goal is: cleaner air, water, environment in general.

(Genuine questions here, forget nitpicking about details and gaps/errors in the climate record: tell us what climate change denialists’ end goals are, and if they’re solid, you’ll have a new supporter in me at least.)

jaxxx

Anyone who disputes that we as a species have not had an affect on climate change needs their head examined. All the pollution we've done throughout the years, the pollution we continue to do. But whenever these climate debates step up, there's always one thing that people never seem to mention: trees.

Everyone knows what roll trees, and plants in general, play towards the whole planet but trees especially so. It's estimated that since the dawn of modern humans, the global population of trees has been more than halved. Forgetting for a moment all those pollutants we cause because of industry, power generation, etc, just think about all that extra CO2 that is in the air because there are only half as many trees as there was maybe 10,000 years ago. And people still believe we've had no impact towards climate change? Give me a break.

endacl

OnlyAplus wrote: »

What do these lads want? Why is climate change denial such a passion for them?

They want to be right about something everybody else is wrong about. Up is down, etc.

Also. They want to win the internet.

Kermit.de.frog

"Climate change deniers"?

Interesting language.

Is that suppose to evoke thoughts of "holocaust deniers"?


The climate has always changed and will always change. What is disputed is the extent to which "man-made" climate change is an issue.

weisses

Become POTUS

jaxxx

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Climate Change Deniers"?

Interesting language.

Is that suppose to evoke thoughts of "holocaust deniers"?


The climate is always changing and will always change. What is disputed is the extent to which "man-made" climate change is an issue.

Another perfect example of another thing people always fail to mention, to make that distinction between or even acknowledge naturally occurring climate change and man made climate change!

Gimme A Pound

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Climate change deniers"?

Interesting language.

Is that suppose to evoke thoughts of "holocaust deniers"?

Ah I dunno if it's that interesting - it just means denying despite a good deal of evidence, what's inaccurate or problematic about that?

Your Face

One wonders how much will this utopia cost me, a humble taxpayer.

JCX BXC

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The climate is always changing and will always change. What is disputed is the extent to which "man-made" climate change is an issue.

Exactly, this is the crux of the issue, I see nobody logical denying that climate change exists, if they do they'd be ignoring significant amounts of historical evidence. However there is logical arguments debating the extent of how much man has actually influenced the climate. Sure we've polluted alot over the years, but most of the evidence we see is saying that the climate is changing, not why it is changing. What exact influence do these greenhouse gases have? Often reports seen to correlate ALL changes in climate with the effect of pollutants, but what we need to prove is to what extent this climate change would have occured without our industrialisation. This is the main gripe I'd have with the entire "climate change/global warming" outrage.

I'm not going to deny that climate change is occuring, or that humans have somehow contributed to it over the years, but I'd like to see proper proven evidence of how much we've actually contributed to climate change, and how negative it actually is. Are we simply speeding up an inevitable process? Will our few hundred years of industrialisation simply be an insignificant blip in the entire lifespan of the earth? Or is our influence causing absolute devastation? With all the politics in this issue now, we never actually get that question, arguably the most important question we can ask now, answered.

Guy:Incognito

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Climate change deniers"?

Interesting language.

Is that suppose to evoke thoughts of "holocaust deniers"?

.

People have been denying stuff since long before the holocaust happened. But sure derail away...........

Junkyard Tom

Fucking neckbeards.

Atlantic Dawn

I wouldn't hold my breath for any clean air from Euro 6 regulations, the majority of diesel testing for Euro 5 was found to be pure fraud. The NCT in this country doesn't check for dpf removals. We don't check trucks for Adblue defeat devices that are rampant in the UK, it's a case of eyes wide shut.

Kristopherus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fucking neckbeards.

Atta boy !!!!! Up & at 'em :D:D

DivingDuck

What do climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists want? To not have to change their behaviour.

It's the same as people who don't want who quit addictions to drugs/booze/sex/whatever. People are very resistant to changing their behaviour, especially to a behaviour that's less convenient or pleasurable or easy. Humans have a great capacity for denial when accepting reality means big and difficult change.

Kermit.de.frog

Faye Small Tidewater wrote: »

Ah I dunno if it's that interesting - it just means denying despite a good deal of evidence, what's inaccurate or problematic about that?

Firstly it's an attempt to subconciously link those who are sceptical of the effect on the planet's atmosphere of human activity with one of the most maniacal regimes ever known to man as though it's somehow on the same level.

This is intentional to degrade and demean people who don't share an opinion.

Secondly it's not a remotely accurate tag. There is NOBODY, not even Donald Trump, who thinks the climate is not changing.

So it is not inaccurate, it is just false.

TheShockmaster

Attention mostly

Corb_lund

I don't think for most its attention whoring or even a disbelief in the science.

I think its a fear of a changing world which is understandable. We all wanted the ferris bueller life of people in their middle class suburbs with fancy cars and typically western lifestyle.

Climate change and the like threatens a way of life already dying via the changing economy.

And there is an argument that the perception of us messing around with bottles whilst the Chinese build coal reactors....is akin to pissing I a furnace.

Gimme A Pound

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Firstly it's an attempt to subconciously link those who are sceptical of the effect on the planet's atmosphere of human activity with one of the most maniacal regimes ever known to man as though it's somehow on the same level.

This is intentional to degrade and demean people who don't share an opinion.

Secondly it's not a remotely accurate tag. There is NOBODY, not even Donald Trump, who thinks the climate is not changing.

So it is not inaccurate, it is just false.

Well I think climate change is shorthand for man-made climate change and that denier is referring to people who don't accept it at all as a possibility. I really don't think it's an attempt, conscious or subconscious, to liken them to Holocaust deniers. The definition of denier is "a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence" so it's a pretty generic term, not as pointed as you suggest, and could be applied to anything. My outlook is similar to JCX BXC's and I don't think that's denial - it's acceptance of the possibilities but not being entirely convinced either, because as you say, the climate has always been changing. I think denier refers to people who just flat out refuse to accept any evidence at all.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Climate change deniers"?

Interesting language.

Is that suppose to evoke thoughts of "holocaust deniers"?


The climate has always changed and will always change. What is disputed is the extent to which "man-made" climate change is an issue.

There’s no real debate on recent global warming. it’s definitely human caused.

Franz Von Peppercorn

DivingDuck wrote: »

What do climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists want? To not have to change their behaviour.

It's the same as people who don't want who quit addictions to drugs/booze/sex/whatever. People are very resistant to changing their behaviour, especially to a behaviour that's less convenient or pleasurable or easy. Humans have a great capacity for denial when accepting reality means big and difficult change.

It’s more than that. Firstly nobody is changing their behaviour, any self proclaimed environmentalist I have ever met was a prodigious carbon producer - big cars, family holidays, big house.

The antis are right about that.

However the deniers don’t even like new technology like wind farms, or solar, or new batteries, or tidal. It’s just another tribal group.

Minderbinder

The deniers that matter don’t want their business or industry to be negatively affected by this. It’s that simple really.

Graces7

Simple. They want to do as they please .

Wanderer78

They tend to live in an altered reality, not truly connected with our reality. Not only is their thinking dangerous for all of humanity, but it's very destructive for themselves, their reality must be a highly stressful existence

Atlantic Dawn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

They tend to live in an altered reality, not truly connected with our reality. Not only is their thinking dangerous for all of humanity, but it's very destructive for themselves, their reality must be a highly stressful existence

Yes encouraging people to drive diesel cars, use wood burning stoves in urban areas and think that urban flooding is caused by anything other than bad planning.

dudara

It’s a mixture of factors in my opinion.

There are anti-climate change believers out there because they naturally incline to distrust anything they perceive as progressive, “left”, “liberal” or even anything that is just plain educated or scientific. Similar to anti-vaxxers in a way.

Then there is the more sinister business-driven agendas. They have a lot invested in the current fossil-fuel driven world. It’s funny though because making the right investments in cleaner tech would reap huge rewards in the future, but so far they generally appear unwilling/unable to do this.

And then, there’s the hard societal facts that would mean admitting that we’re at 7 billion humans and growing with no intention of slowing down. No one wants to introduce caps on population growth, but how else would we be quickly able to control the population explosion?

Edi: also to add that taking steps to make things better will probably cost more, e.g. removing and reducing plastic from our every day lives will mean finding alternatives, which will probably cost more short term. Stopping intensive farming of terrible, mass-produced meat means paying more for properly raised animals. Not everyone can or wants to pay more.

Wanderer78

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

Yes encouraging people to drive diesel cars, use wood burning stoves in urban areas and think that urban flooding is caused by anything other than bad planning.

Is there more sinister factors at play that has caused these issues, such as lobbying from within the fossil fuels industries, construction industries, financial industries etc etc etc?

el diablo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There’s no real debate on recent global warming. it’s definitely human caused.

Definitely? According to who? The government funded scientists who'll lose their funding and be banished from their profession if they question it? The planet has been going through cooling and warming cycles since the beginning of time. Al Gore made some ridiculous claims back in the mid-nineties that Arctic Sea ice would be all gone by 2013 but it has actually expanded since.
Why are we seeing no mention of these record summer snowfalls (see video below) on the mainstream news? I guess it doesn't fit the globalist narrative.

Arghus

They mainly don't want to do anything, just keep on doing as they have been doing.

the_syco

OnlyAplus wrote: »

What do these lads want? Why is climate change denial such a passion for them?

Mostly, your money.

el diablo

the_syco wrote: »

Mostly, your money.

That makes no sense. Maybe you can expand on that? It's actually the climate change alarmists that want your money (in the form of increased taxes) rather than the deniers.

Not sure why people even worry about climate change deniers. Unlike anti-vaxx people who can affect others, believing or not believing in man-made climate change does nothing to change a person's behaviour.

My footprint is far far lower than a lot of people who'd bang on about the environment, and that's before kids even come into it, which I won't be having.

Cabaal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The climate has always changed and will always change. What is disputed is the extent to which "man-made" climate change is an issue.

Thing is, the people that dispute it would lead you to believe that there's some sort of 50/540 split amongst scientists for this. There isn't, its about 2/98.

Yet this 2% of people who dispute it get equal airtime or more on media etc

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure why people even worry about climate change deniers. Unlike anti-vaxx people who can affect others, believing or not believing in man-made climate change does nothing to change a person's behaviour.

So if you have people that don't believe in man made climate change passing lax government regulations that allow company's to pump whatever they want into the air....thats a small footprint? WE only need to look at the USA for how this can happen and how it can effect an entire country and by extension....the world.

Like it or not, we're all connected.

Cabaal

el diablo wrote: »

That makes no sense. Maybe you can expand on that? It's actually the climate change alarmists that want your money (in the form of increased taxes) rather than the deniers.

Easy make money from claiming climate is not effected by activity of humans in a few easy steps

- Claim climate is not effected by human's
- Less Regulation are past to regulate emissions and pollution
- Company can leave all sorts into the atmosphere and/or rivers
- More profit for company

You've only to look at the good old USA for how reflation changes relax the clean air and water act have resulted in company's not giving a crap and dumping all sorts into the air and water...and ground.

All in the name of profits and share prices.

Historically most company's will do the exact same when it comes to worker safety regulations, if they can get away with legally putting workers at more risk and it means they make more money or have to spent less money protecting workers they'll also do that.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

So if you have people that don't believe in man made climate change passing lax government regulations that allow company's to pump whatever they want into the air....thats a small footprint? WE only need to look at the USA for how this can happen and how it can effect an entire country and by extension....the world.

Like it or not, we're all connected.

I said care about. My point was about people getting annoyed about it.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There’s no real debate on recent global warming. it’s definitely human caused.

Can you really point to human behaviour as the cause of changes in climate? Surely it is just a contributing factor at most. I'm wondering what the population did to cause the beginning and end of the ice age, light fires for cooking?

Cabaal

davo10 wrote: »

Can you really point to human behaviour as the cause of changes in climate? Surely it is just a contributing factor at most. I'm wondering what the population did to cause the beginning and end of the ice age, light fires for cooking?

Really?
nobody has said human activity ended the last ice age that ended approx 12k years ago,

Got anymore whatabouttery?
:rolleyes:

Havockk

It's really amazing what a few million dollars from corrupt oil companies, into the hands of corrupt bastards was able turn opinion like it did. We now have a section of people who vehemently deny man is having an effect, all is natural who are literally condemning their own children and the planet they live on. It's a sad indictment of our times.

I should also point out, a complicit media (also corrupt) helped by giving both platforms the same airtime like another poster pointed out.

davo10

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
nobody has said human activity ended the last ice age that ended approx 12k years ago,

Got anymore whatabouttery?
:rolleyes:

Point being, climate change occurs, human behaviour is not the only cause, the climate change during the ice age being an example of that, is there some whatabouttery about that? I'm not a climate change denier, to be honest I don't really care, scientific research shows temperatures are changing, but human behaviour is not the only cause, though it may be a contributing one.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What do they want?

Not to have to make the effort to change to cleaner more renewable energies. Not to have to make the effort to recycle. Not to have to make the effort to turn the lights off when they leave the room.

Basically, not to make the effort.

BrokenArrows

Because the deniers just want to do whatever the **** they want without anyone telling them otherwise.

They are not smart enough to understand "the greater good" concept.

Reducing pollution = extra expense and hassle = the greater good of slowing climate change increased health by having cleaner air ( i dont think its possible to reverse it at this stage. we are a hundred years away from a planet of clean energy)

Vaccines = a very small number of bad side effects = the greater good of the majority of the population being immune to horrible diseases.

mikhail

davo10 wrote: »

Point being, climate change occurs, human behaviour is not the only cause, the climate change during the ice age being an example of that, is there some whatabouttery about that? I'm not a climate change denier, to be honest I don't really care, scientific research shows temperatures are changing, but human behaviour is not the only cause, though it may be a contributing one.

Gbear

dudara wrote: »

And then, there’s the hard societal facts that would mean admitting that we’re at 7 billion humans and growing with no intention of slowing down. No one wants to introduce caps on population growth, but how else would we be quickly able to control the population explosion?

Overpopulation isn't an issue at all.

Poverty is, and wealth inequality, but we have more than enough resources.

Further to that, the current rates of population growth have been dropping since, I think, the 60's.

It's estimated that the population will top out at 11bn around 2100, but the growth will slow to a crawl around 2050.

While a grim picture is often painted of the world, absolute poverty is going down and we're getting better and better and dealing with these resource shortages in poorer countries.

However, climate change will sabotage this progress, especially in poorer countries.

Wealthy nations will learn to deal with drought. If we had the same drought this summer on the regular, it would become practical to build large scale water reallocation projects (there's one proposed for the Shannon, I believe) or perhaps desalinisation.
Poorer countries won't have the resources or the know how to do that.

For Western nations, climate change will be massively expensive, first and foremost. There will be more deaths due to drought, heatwaves and other adverse weather conditions, but most of all we'll have to massively upgrade our infrastructure, and possible create large scale levees and dykes to stop cities like New York, Florida, New Orleans, Dublin, Copenhagen, etc, from being submerged.

But places like the Maldives will disappear completely, and that's why we see the governments of countries like theirs so outspoken about the subject, and Bangladesh, parts of India, Indonesia and countries all over Africa will struggle to handle the effects.

This, coupled with the continuing growth of the band of aridity across the globe will also create a huge press of immigrants fleeing dead or flooded lands, which right wingers apparently don't want, but are gleefully pushing for policies that will exacerbate the problem.

davo10

mikhail wrote: »

From my very limited experience/interest of this argument, mikhails post is a perfect example of the problems on both sides, ignorance and intolerance. Whether you voice an opinion either way, one group says you are wrong and try to belittle your opinion.

My opinion is somewhere in between, history shows climate change occurs independent of human behaviour, but human behaviour is now a factor in climate change, but not the only factor. So I'm going to continue driving my 4litre jeep, cause it's comfy and I like it.

Captain Red Beard

el diablo wrote: »

Definitely? According to who? The government funded scientists who'll lose their funding and be banished from their profession if they question it? The planet has been going through cooling and warming cycles since the beginning of time. Al Gore made some ridiculous claims back in the mid-nineties that Arctic Sea ice would be all gone by 2013 but it has actually expanded since.
Why are we seeing no mention of these record summer snowfalls (see video below) on the mainstream news?

That's a lie about the arctic sea ice, mostly spread by lobbyists for oil and manufacturing industries. While it has spread in some areas it's nowhere near as thick as it used to be, it's something like 1/10 of it's original thickness.
The sad thing is when regular plebs start believing those lies over 99% of climate scientists facts, or calling climate change a mainstream media hoax, as if they have access to some underground news service that reports the truth.

mikhail

davo10 wrote: »

From my very limited experience/interest of this argument, mikhails post is a perfect example of the problems on both sides, ignorance and intolerance. Whether you voice an opinion either way, one group says you are wrong and try to belittle your opinion.

My opinion is somewhere in between, history shows climate change occurs independent of human behaviour, but human behaviour is now a factor in climate change, but not the only factor.

The downplaying of the human role in the changing climate is a rather tired old attempt to deflect from the problem. I don't feel the need to debate an issue that is constantly debated by professionals with far more data and tools of analysis than me, professionals who show a staggering degree of consensus on the overall trends and threats involved. If you want to bury your head in the sand, or buy into the misinformation driven by multinationals who fear for their profit margins, you don't have my respect. In short, I think you're a moron. We can dress it up nicely, but there it is.

davo10

mikhail wrote: »

The downplaying of the human role in the changing climate is a rather tired old attempt to deflect from the problem. I don't feel the need to debate an issue that is constantly debated by professionals with far more data and tools of analysis than me, professionals who show a staggering degree of consensus on the overall trends and threats involved. If you want to bury your head in the sand, or buy into the misinformation driven by multinationals who fear for their profit margins, you don't have my respect. In short, I think you're a moron. We can dress it up nicely, but there it is.

There you go again, you can't debate so you insult. Yes it is debated by professionals, with evidence on both sides, that's what debate is about, exchange of ideas and opinions. You are a classic example of why debate is stifled, you prefer to insult than engage.

mikhail

davo10 wrote: »

There you go again, you can't debate so you insult. Yes it is debated by professionals, with evidence on both sides, that's what debate is about, exchange of ideas and opinions. You are a classic example of why debate is stifled, you prefer to insult than engage.

The debate isn't stifled, it's essentially settled. I wasted many an hour debating people like you (climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, 9-11 conspiracy nuts, alien pyramid nuts, flat earthers...) when I was young and naive. Sometimes it was fun, but it's long since lost its novelty. You people have no interest in honest debate. Every refutation of your latest piece of evidence against the scientific consensus is ignored, as you run to another conspiracy website and find another factoid (out of context, cherry-picked, completely fabricated, or whatever) that I'm obliged to waste another 20 minutes debunking. You will never change your mind.

Scientific consensus on a subject can change over time, as it did on climate as huge advances in computing power and ready availability of satellite data made models considerably more accurate decades ago. When that happens, my opinion on a subject will change. I don't believe you're capable of any such revelation.

I'm sorry I called you a moron, which was impolite. However, you do not have my respect, and I won't waste time engaging your nonsense on this utterly exhausted topic.

cfuserkildare

You do all realise that we are on the Upside of the coldest epoch the world has ever seen?
The last 50 thousand years are the coldest the Earth had Ever experienced,!!!

harry Bailey esq

OnlyAplus wrote: »

What do these lads want?

Some soap and a sponge would be a good start.

davo10

mikhail wrote: »

The debate isn't stifled, it's essentially settled. I wasted many an hour debating people like you (climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, 9-11 conspiracy nuts, alien pyramid nuts, flat earthers...) when I was young and naive. Sometimes it was fun, but it's long since lost its novelty. You people have no interest in honest debate. Every refutation of your latest piece of evidence against the scientific consensus is ignored, as you run to another conspiracy website and find another factoid (out of context, cherry-picked, completely fabricated, or whatever) that I'm obliged to waste another 20 minutes debunking. You will never change your mind.

Scientific consensus on a subject can change over time, as it did on climate as huge advances in computing power and ready availability of satellite data made models considerably more accurate decades ago. When that happens, my opinion on a subject will change. I don't believe you're capable of any such revelation.

I'm sorry I called you a moron, which was impolite. However, you do not have my respect, and I won't waste time engaging your nonsense on this utterly exhausted topic.

See, there you go displaying intolerance again.

I believe in climate change, vaccinations, I was in NY in 9-11, haven't a clue what an alien pyrimid is and having traveled the globe, its round alright.

People won't change their mind just because you insult them or make fun of them, if anything it lessens your argument and makes them determined to show you up for being as you yourself put it "foolish and naive". So, take a step back, and try to rationalise without having to insult the person you are discussing it with.

If you take the time to look back on my posts, I don't deny climate change, F von P posted that humans are the cause of climate change. My point then, as now, is that human behaviour contributes to climate change, but it is not the only factor, and I gave an example of how climate change occurred independently of human behaviour. I am not as knowledgable as you about this, I don't really care to be honest, but that seems to rile you up, it shouldn't, you should be more tolerant of those who disagree with you and aren't as interested in it as you are. If you want respect, don't mock the people you are discussing it with.

In relation to understanding it or the capicity for revelation, I have a Science degree, I understand scientific research just a teensy weensy bit.

el diablo

mikhail wrote: »

The debate isn't stifled, it's essentially settled. I wasted many an hour debating people like you (climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, 9-11 conspiracy nuts, alien pyramid nuts, flat earthers...) when I was young and naive. Sometimes it was fun, but it's long since lost its novelty. You people have no interest in honest debate. Every refutation of your latest piece of evidence against the scientific consensus is ignored, as you run to another conspiracy website and find another factoid (out of context, cherry-picked, completely fabricated, or whatever) that I'm obliged to waste another 20 minutes debunking. You will never change your mind.

Scientific consensus on a subject can change over time, as it did on climate as huge advances in computing power and ready availability of satellite data made models considerably more accurate decades ago. When that happens, my opinion on a subject will change. I don't believe you're capable of any such revelation.

I'm sorry I called you a moron, which was impolite. However, you do not have my respect, and I won't waste time engaging your nonsense on this utterly exhausted topic.

Are you one of these conspiracy nuts who believes that two aluminum planes (where most of the jet fuel burned up in the initial impact) are capable of collapsing three steel and concrete framed skyscrapers at freefall speed turning them into dust and molten metal? :rolleyes: