What do climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists want?

Cabaal · 03-09-2018 07:09AM

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 · 03-09-2018 07:12AM

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.

03-09-2018 07:18AM

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 · 03-09-2018 07:20AM

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 · 03-09-2018 07:24AM

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 · 03-09-2018 07:29AM

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 · 03-09-2018 07:43AM

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 · 03-09-2018 08:58AM

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 · 03-09-2018 09:22AM

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 · 03-09-2018 09:30AM

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 · 03-09-2018 09:44AM

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 · 03-09-2018 09:44AM

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 · 03-09-2018 09:49AM

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 · 03-09-2018 09:54AM

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 · 03-09-2018 11:02AM

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 · 03-09-2018 11:54PM

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 · 04-09-2018 12:14AM

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 · 04-09-2018 12:18AM

OnlyAplus wrote: »

What do these lads want?

Some soap and a sponge would be a good start.

davo10 · 04-09-2018 06:42AM

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 · 05-09-2018 01:02AM

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:

Franz Von Peppercorn · 05-09-2018 01:08AM

Creative83 wrote: »

It isn't settled! Stop spouting that line... It is never settled in actual science... shame your a naive fool

Of course it’s settled. And plenty of science is settled.

There’s no way that adding carbon to the atmosphere can’t warm the atmosphere.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 05-09-2018 01:11AM

davo10 wrote: »

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.

It doesn’t really matter if the climate changed in the past prior to human behaviour. What matters is that it is now changing because of human behaviour, and how rapidly.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 05-09-2018 01:18AM

cfuserkildare wrote: »

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,!!!

Nowhere near it.

There was a glacial period where the earth was a snowball, or very nearly, about 500M years ago. The current ice age isn’t that strong an ice age, and anyway it’s what we humans can survive in (or at least we can survive the inter glacial). The earth and life will survive long after we perish, if we do. What matters is the range of temperatures human civilisation can survive in.

el diablo · 12-09-2018 02:57AM

All you climate change/global warming alarmists should listen to this:

Ubbquittious · 12-09-2018 03:16AM

What bates me dead is how there's environmentalists who think it's somehow possible to keep the modern consumerist economy alive while getting rid of the associated environmental problems.

Surely the right job would be to turf out consumerism first and clean up the mess later? Though that would be 'going backwards' and nobody seriously wants to consider doing that. Tis almost as taboo as population control.

Nop. Apparently we can all keep going through loads of plastic and smartphones from China and buying other unnecessary sh1te and the 'circular economy' will solve our problems and the world will be saved despite more money changing hands than ever before.

What do climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists want?

Comments