How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[BoyintheMachine]

And you claim that believing that the energy companies want you to accept climate change as a human-created phenomenon to fatten profits is critical thinking? What about the reverse theory, that the energy companies are doing everything possible to debunk the climate change issue?

Gene, I've already addressed this with you. For some reason you are not understanding it. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct that energy companies are funding the debunking of anthropomorphic climate change. What you need to do now is to follow the money. The money flows from the U.S. government, talking billion dollar industry, for the reality of anthropomorphic climate change. That should be enough to cause you to question the reality of this. Because the energy companies can not compete with the money coming from the U.S. government.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So way pay money to research something that's nonexistent? Isn't there a more useful way to invest money? Where's the logic in paying for a fraud when there's so much real to look into?

 

[BoyintheMachine]

So way pay money to research something that's nonexistent? Isn't there a more useful way to invest money? Where's the logic in paying for a fraud when there's so much real to look into?

Because certain individuals are becoming filthy rich off of this. There are tens of thousands of people whose 6 figure salary jobs depend on the reality of anthropomorphic climate change. If it it's wrong, then they are out of a job and the money stops flowing in. Do you expect these people to be non-biased toward the issue or to just sit there and not do something to prevent people from waking up?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And what about the ones who work for the oil industry and are paid to debunk climate change?

 

[Frank Stalter]

That about sums it up. Countless hours of corporate television like the first video in this thread have made the believers immune to reason and evidence.

Notice how they respond to our science with every logical fallacy in the book; Non-Sequiturs, Ad Hominems, Appeals to Ridicule, et al., and robotically regurgitate the memes programed into them.

Some say it's not their fault. I say it is. Every person is given the choice whether to abandon critical thinking.

Firstly, let me say we should be moving to future energies as fast as possible because fossil fuels are a finite resource. Having said that, the pro-AGW argument is about correlation equaling causation and the correlation is breaking down. The predictions, which is a big part of any scientific hypothesis, are not happening. The theory has been around long enough and one early red flag date was 2020. We well into 2014 and not seeing the scorched Earth predicted. I do believe most scientists who support AGW are honest in that support. I just think they're wrong. I don't think the politicians on either side care.

As an aside, the links I posted are from essentially pro-AGW sources. They should give the intellectually honest individual at least some pause.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As I said, the energy industry is funding climate change denials. The Koch brothers are notorious for funding conservative causes, and putting hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns, far far more than the so-called liberal billionaires.

Who Funds Contrariness on Climate Change? - Scientific American

 

[BoyintheMachine]

And what about the ones who work for the oil industry and are paid to debunk climate change?

1. Not every single person who is opposed to anthropomorphic climate change is connected to the oil industry.

2. The oil industry can not compete with the billions given out to ONLY the scientists who support anthropomorphic climate change. I've tried to explain to you how the U.S. government is hijacking science. It did it with the Aids epidemic and it's doing it with climate change.

Gene, this is pointless. You made up your mind a long time ago and your opinion is not based on any evidence or logical reasons. Instead, your belief is based on an irrational hatred of the oil industry, to the point of you inventing a conspiracy of Oil industry to oppose anthropomorphic climate change, and thus you can not be reasoned with.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So far I haven't seen evidence from you. Just talk about a UN conspiracy and claims.

My mind isn't made up. But that doesn't mean I believe every wacky theory out there. But even if humans aren't making climate change worse doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the environment.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

As I said, the energy industry is funding climate change denials. The Koch brothers are notorious for funding conservative causes, and putting hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns, far far more than the so-called liberal billionaires.

Who Funds Contrariness on Climate Change? - Scientific American

No Gene. That's a fallacy to imply that the Oil industry is behind scientific opposition. To claim that any scientist who opposes it is being paid off by the Oil industry is lunacy. Just like how you tried to imply that opposing man-made climate change equals opposing Obama. You are making all these weird statements an aren't going anywhere near data or evidence.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

So far I haven't seen evidence from you. Just talk about a UN conspiracy and claims.

My mind isn't made up. But that doesn't mean I believe every wacky theory out there. But even if humans aren't making climate change worse doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the environment.

This has nothing to do with the environment. You keep equating this to environmental causes, such as pollution. These people pushing this aren't talking about pollution with chemicals, such as polluting the oceans and water. They are claiming that CO2 is a pollution and that our mere existence is detrimental to the planet. We need to pay high taxes simply because we dare breathe! How dare we drive cars! How dare we have homes with modern appliances! We should pay severely for our hubris!

 

[Frank Stalter]

As I said, the energy industry is funding climate change denials. The Koch brothers are notorious for funding conservative causes, and putting hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns, far far more than the so-called liberal billionaires.

Who Funds Contrariness on Climate Change? - Scientific American

If the Koch Brothers funded support for the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus would the sun still revolve around the Earth?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

No Gene. That's a fallacy to imply that the Oil industry is behind scientific opposition. To claim that any scientist who opposes it is being paid off by the Oil industry is lunacy. Just like how you tried to imply that opposing man-made climate change equals opposing Obama. You are making all these weird statements an aren't going anywhere near data or evidence.

Clearly you didn't read my link.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And I presume some of you will argue that this isn't happening either or that it's an Obama and/or UN plot:

How Rising Seas Could Sink Nuclear Plants On The East Coast

 

[BoyintheMachine]

And I presume some of you will argue that this isn't happening either or that it's an Obama and/or UN plot:

How Rising Seas Could Sink Nuclear Plants On The East Coast

You are the one who brought up Obama and implied that opposition to AGW equals opposition to Obama.

Look, I'm done. Gene, it's obvious you aren't truly interested in any rational debate on this. You've completely made up your mind, even though you claim otherwise. What was that line from Stan Friedman, "Don't bother me with the facts. My mind's made up."

FYI: For the majority of earth's history there has not been ice at the poles. Just so you know. Climate changes. The ice packs at the poles will melt. Just like they will also reform. And the earth will bake and be scorched. And the earth will again go into a deep-freeze ice age. The earth's climates wobbles back and forth through these extremes regardless of human consumption of fossil fuels. From today all through our ancient past the only thing humans have done and can do is adapt to survive. We have not yet reached a god-like level of technology that would allow us to control the earth's climate. If tomorrow we brought our CO2 level down to zero it would have no impact on the earth's climate, not because the damage was already done, but because CO2 is not the driving force of the earth's climate. There is no correlation between high CO2 levels and global warming. In fact, it's just the opposite. When CO2 peaks the global temperature amazingly falls. When it is at a low the global temperature rises. This indicates that whatever is causing the heating and cooling trends of earth's climate is not associated with CO2 levels. It's something completely independent and currently unidentified. And yes, the major contenders are, 1. the sun, and 2 a cyclical wobbling of the planet. However, nothing has been proven as of yet.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Let's look at the facts: I gave you a link that disproved some of the things you wrote, but you ignored it and complained about not wanting rational debate. And I never implied that opposition to global warming is opposition to Obama. I merely pointed out how things are taken out of context to prove a contrary point. It didn't have to involve Obama, but in this case it did.

And you'll probably ignore this link too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html

I suppose if I want rational debate, maybe I should just leave this thread — which, when I think about it — is a great idea.

Enjoy talking to yourself. But if things get out of hand, it will be shut down.

 

[mike]

So far I haven't seen evidence from you. Just talk about a UN conspiracy and claims.

My mind isn't made up. But that doesn't mean I believe every wacky theory out there. But even if humans aren't making climate change worse doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the environment.

That pretty much sums up my own pov.
Like underpants, cleaner is always better.

Best practice, should always be the goal.

I am skeptical of the various schemes and taxes that are being attached to this issue though, making a company that pollutes pay a tax to do so, does nothing for the environment, they simply pass this cost to the consumer and the pollution continues.

Personally i dont link the two issues, because regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be looking after the environment as a best practice policy

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Let's look at the facts: I gave you a link that disproved some of the things you wrote, but you ignored it and complained about not wanting rational debate. And I never implied that opposition to global warming is opposition to Obama. I merely pointed out how things are taken out of context to prove a contrary point. It didn't have to involve Obama, but in this case it did.

And you'll probably ignore this link too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html

I suppose if I want rational debate, maybe I should just leave this thread — which, when I think about it — is a great idea.

Enjoy talking to yourself. But if things get out of hand, it will be shut down.

Gene, I've looked at all the evidence that is alleged for the reality of AGW. It does not hold up. However, you have not mentioned even once looking at the evidence against AGW. This is why that Stan Friedman phrase, "Don't bother me with the facts. My mind's made up", fits you perfectly.

FYI: The earth isn't even currently warming but you aren't going to know about that unless you actually research it. The last year that the average global temperature rose was 1997. We are currently in a cooling trend. But what makes it so funny is even though this cooling trend is not predicted by AGW, it is still used to support AGW. Hence, why I said if something is unfalsifiable then it is supposed to be rejected. However, you and the believers will never reject it. You will go right on believing that every single thing supports AGW.

Don't worry about shutting this conversation down. I have no desire to converse with you further on this topic. You are set in your way and even attempting to convince you of anything, either way, is pointless.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

That pretty much sums up my own pov.
Like underpants, cleaner is always better.

Best practice, should always be the goal.

I am skeptical of the various schemes and taxes that are being attached to this issue though, making a company that pollutes pay a tax to do so, does nothing for the environment, they simply pass this cost to the consumer and the pollution continues.

Personally i dont link the two issues, because regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be looking after the environment as a best practice policy

There's absolutely nothing we can do at this stage in our technological development to control the climate. Nothing. The climate is going to do what it is going to do regardless of how high we pesky fleas think of ourselves. I'm reminded of the George Carlin stand up:

So even if we bring our CO2 levels down to zero it's not going to effect what the climate is going to do because the climate is a system that is far more complex than we pesky vermin. And just so you know, the believers in AGW are not talking about stopping real pollution. The don't talk about factories dumping chemicals in the ocean or rivers. No. That's not what they are talking about. They are saying that you and me, our very existence, is destroying this planet. You and I and everyone else must be taxed to death because we dare breathe. How dare we drive cars and use modern appliances!

 

[Burnt State]

David Suzuki is one of the world's pioneering environmentalist. Since the 70's he's been passionately pursuing the nature of all things living and that includes their habitat and what affects it. He's been engaged in pursuing the interdisciplinary nature of life sciences for over 4o years. Since the 90's his Foundation has been working on climate change and sustainability issues. He's better positioned than most to have more than an informed opinion, but actually researched knowledge on the issues of global warming. He's been working on trying to sustain natural resources long before it became cool to scoff at the idea of caring for the environment; because, those greed lusting scientists are trying to steal everyone's money in the name of climate change.

The one thing I've some to recognize about climate change denial is that there's a kind of nihilism there at work that is really hard to understand. The position denies attaching any significance to the quality of the habitat for humans or any other living thing. The poisoning of the land, cancer rates among children, air quality sponsored asthma and allergies, our toxified water resources - both ocean and freshwater, extreme weather, and the callous extermination of oh so many species of life forms --> all these are indifferently ignored, as if somehow hating climate change proponents is the primary agenda.

Does no one speak for the trees anymore? When you say follow the money, tell me who benefits the most following the deregulation of environmental policies as they relate to natural resource exploitation? Who do you think will get wealthier and whose descendants will get more cancer. All this yammering about the great climate change $$$ swindle is pure obfuscation of reality.

I can't believe how this discussion really continues to lower my standards of personal practice. But really, what's this argument about at its heart people; cuz that's what needs to be addressed, not bickering about who is a real scientist, or who can accurately make myth or truth out of climate science.

Has the world as you've known it since you've been alive got more inhabitable or more inhospitable? And what are you arguing for again?

 

[BoyintheMachine]

David Suzuki is one of the world's pioneering environmentalist. Since the 70's he's been passionately pursuing the nature of all things living and that includes their habitat and what affects it. He's been engaged in pursuing the interdisciplinary nature of life sciences for over 4o years. Since the 90's his Foundation has been working on climate change and sustainability issues. He's better positioned than most to have more than an informed opinion, but actually researched knowledge on the issues of global warming. He's been working on trying to sustain natural resources long before it became cool to scoff at the idea of caring for the environment; because, those greed lusting scientists are trying to steal everyone's money in the name of climate change.

The one thing I've some to recognize about climate change denial is that there's a kind of nihilism there at work that is really hard to understand. The position denies attaching any significance to the quality of the habitat for humans or any other living thing. The poisoning of the land, cancer rates among children, air quality sponsored asthma and allergies, our toxified water resources - both ocean and freshwater, extreme weather, and the callous extermination of oh so many species of life forms --> all these are indifferently ignored, as if somehow hating climate change proponents is the primary agenda.

Does no one speak for the trees anymore? When you say follow the money, tell me who benefits the most following the deregulation of environmental policies as they relate to natural resource exploitation? Who do you think will get wealthier and whose descendants will get more cancer. All this yammering about the great climate change $$$ swindle is pure obfuscation of reality.

I can't believe how this discussion really continues to lower my standards of personal practice. But really, what's this argument about at its heart people; cuz that's what needs to be addressed, not bickering about who is a real scientist, or who can accurately make myth or truth out of climate science.

Has the world as you've known it since you've been alive got more inhabitable or more inhospitable? And what are you arguing for again?

David Suzuki has no education in the climate sciences. He is an activist first and foremost. I also believe him to be a fanatic. He should not be giving a scientific opinion on that which he is not educated in.

AGW pushers always, always, always try to connect this to real pollution, such as factories dumping heavy metals in the soil or dangerous chemicals in the oceans, or even releasing real poisons in the air. The truth is that AGW centers on CO2 and that despite the fear porn, CO2 is not a toxin. It's not a threat. It is not the driving force behind the earth's climate. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is .054%, and that's after 200 years of industrialization. Not to mention that we are NOT, repeat NOT living at the time in earth's history which had the highest percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. There have been times in the past with up to 10x more CO2 than today and yet such level was not connected to a massive global heat wave.

The world being more inhabitable or more inhospitable has nothing to do with AGW. Also, just so you know, the earth can not be the permanent home for the human species. In about 50 thousand years or less we will enter another Ice Age. Within 500 thousand years from now the earth will be struck by a massive asteroid. Within about a million year or so a super volcano will erupt that will likely wipe out all humanity. Within a 100 million years or so an asteroid on the same level or even more massive than the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs will strike the earth. Within 600 million years a nearby supernova will explode and destroy the earth's ozone and cause a mass extinction on the planet. In 800 million years the real greenhouse effect will kick in. You see, our sun is middle age. As it enters it's senior years it will heat up and produce more light. More light means more heat on the planet. Within 800 million years it will be impossible for plant life to exist on the planet. All animal life will likewise go extinct. Do you understand that? We could die out within 50,ooo years to 800 million years from now. One way or another we are going to go and it won't be from the CO2 we produce. So instead of worrying about stuff that we can't control, why not dedicate our time and technology into getting us off the planet?

Timeline of the far future - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia