MovieChat Forums > Politics > Denying Climate Change is no different t...

Denying Climate Change is no different than denying Evolution


Both put you on the same level as the flat earthers and it is a shame seeing people in first world countries doing this. Follow the science, not politics/ideology.

reply

If you believe the things you say, then why do you believe Miss How dare you? She is all politics.

reply

She's not actually she has spoken against politicizing the issue.

reply

When?

reply

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1205220013034094592

reply

That's it? That's all it takes for you believe her? Once again, she FAILED to sue China in her political lawsuit when China is the #1 polluter of the Earth and you believe her because of a throw away tweet?

Don't actions speak louder than? Don't be so naive.

reply

It’s true. Neither theory is proven scientifically nor can they be until someone builds a time machine.

Evolution certainly seems logical based on the evidence we have, but there are still huge gaps in the theory.

The man made climate change theory is just a religious political movement that has little basis in science. Their biggest claim is scientific consensus which does not exist in science. It’s just a tool they use to suppress further study and debate. They’ve been caught rigging data hundreds of times. A common practice when pushing communism.

A better comparison would be to the Democrat media calling itself objective journalism.

Carl Sagan destroys the man made climate hoax best with his own words on science.

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's all right. It's the aperture to finding out what's right.

Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.

The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts.
Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge.
And there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. And the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Carl Sagan


reply

"Evolution certainly seems logical based on the evidence we have, but there are still huge gaps in the theory."

What gaps? Surely you are not talking about things like irreducible complexity.

reply

Whether one believe in climate change or not, we will not be compelled to do anything until our asses are literally burning and by then it will be too late so drink up and enjoy humanity.

reply

No one denies the climate doesn't change. What's not real is thinking global wealth transfers, and ignoring china is a solution to the problem.

The bullshit is all documented here:
https://extinctionclock.org/

reply

I knew I'd find this exact post here lol.

reply

Can you admit that there's a possibility that the threat is exaggerated? The real danger is the economic devastation that the left wants to cause in their effort to fight something that can't even be measured. When will they declare success and how will they know? They won't.

Meanwhile Algore, B.O. and all the other elitists will continue living in their energy hog mansions on a beach while we pay artificially high energy bills and gas prices.

reply

"Can you admit that there's a possibility that the threat is exaggerated?"

Well are scientists the one doing this "exaggeration" or politicians/celebrities?

reply

Politicians and celebrities. Look at Gore. He’s a millionaire because he exploited the environment based off of non peer reviewed data. Yet one if his mansions uses 3x the electricity of a normal household. Seems hypocritical, doesn’t it?

reply

Then their claims may be dismissed. Better stick to the scientists and avoid political rhetoric. The science shows evidence for climate change and that we should do something about it

reply

So then you agree that Gore's movies about climate change are BS, right? He won an Oscar for a BS documentary.

Watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U

reply

[deleted]

Multi-billionaires like oilmen the Koch brothers paid billions in anti-climate change propaganda for decades because the science threatened their oil profits. They started many "groups" to pretend there was a question about the science. There isn't.

Can you imagine being in your 80s with a family net worth of $99 billion and wanting to take more money from the middle-class? They want to end social security and medicare in order to further lower their own taxes even though they have repeatedly been lowered since the 80s because of Reagan, Bush and Trump. That's a sickness!

I wish average Americanswould stop siding with sociopaths billionaires who don't care about anyone but themselves.

reply

I would love to know how anti-climate change "propaganda" takes money from the middle class. In fact it's the left who want to destroy capitalism and the middle class.

reply

Left. Right. You're allowing yourself to be manipulated.

Why the hell are Americans drinking polluted water in Flint and other parts of America? Why don't rural Americans have broadband available to them? Are you aware that China is creating a fleet of electric cars and European countries are moving to electric cars, also? Are we a banana republic or a world leader? Where is your American pride????

Oil is the past. The future is green energy where the rest of the world is heading and where most of the energy jobs are being created now! Biden wants to create high-paying middle-class jobs and lead global innovation in this sector. Click on his plan. Scroll down to the bottom for details. His plan helps middle America by creating jobs and needed infrastructure!
Americans should be leading the world in a new and innovative global sector!!!!
If Americans thought like you did in the 60s, we would have never landed on the moon!
https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/#

A few oil men are threatened by green energy because it cuts into their profit. Too bad for them. The rest of us need to move toward the future and not look back or the world will leave us behind! The choice is a few oil billionaires maintaining the status quo or thousands of jobs being created to help strengthen the middle-class!!!!!!!!!! (I would love to know how anti-climate change "propaganda" takes money from the middle class.) See! I just answered your question!

If you understood capitalism, then you'd understand that this new sector will only make America strong and richer and help millions of Americans economically.

The middle-class has allowed itself to be destroyed by legislation and tax cuts which favor the rich that started in the 70s and accelerated in the 1980s. That 2018 tax cut helped mainly multi-millionaires and large businesses. Why did most of the farm aid and covid money go to large businesses instead of small businesses?

reply

TLTR looks like a bunch of mumbo jumbo anyway.

reply

"I would love to know how..."
You obviously don't since you hate reading.

"In fact ..."
You only have an opinion backed up with nothing.

You appear to fear knowledge. Reading is a beautiful thing. It grows a mind.

reply

It's nothing but propaganda.

reply

"It's nothing but propaganda."

You only have an opinion backed up with MORE nothing.

reply

The threat certainly didn't seem exaggerated when Australia burnt to a crisp last year. Maybe you should tell it to our Koala population which has been decimated up to 80% in some areas. That doesn't happen every year, believe it or not. It's been gradually getting worse until we were hit with last year's nightmare. Experts say to expect worsening conditions in the future, but why would we listen to them right?

Moviechat guy knows better.

reply

What science do you have to back up AGW being the cause of the greatest disaster in human history in any time frame, let alone the next 11-12 years? I look forward to examining it.

If you would like to see some of the science behind not being a climate doomsday zealot I am happy to provide plenty of data.
However, it seems from your post that your mind is made up, so I won't hold my breath. I sure hope you did at least a little footwork before believing popular mantras, buzzwords, accusations, and the-end-is-nigh predictions.

reply

The science has established that climate change is real, no? The hysteria of politicians and celebs is not science.

reply

the term "climate change" is a political term itself to make it sound as if the science is settled. Climate has always changed, period and with little to no human impact . "man made climate change" is still disputed to the amount of impact (especially catastrophic impact) by human intervention.

"the 97% of scientist agree" argument is a little disingenuous when looking at the methodology of the most influential paper by john cook in 2013. he took about 12k climatologist study summaries, disregarded any summary not mentioning anthropogentic global warming, about 8k of them were disregarded. out of the remaining 4k.... 97% of summaries mentioning AGW see man made CC as a significant impact.

he couldve said "32% of climate study summaries see AGW as a significant impact". but that doesnt sound as impressive as a 97% consensus.

climatologist Judith Curry whose paper was part of the 32% has come out against "climate alarmism". .

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura has come out last year with a book slamming the computer models. here's a review of his book: https://medium.com/@gastaotaveira/book-review-confessions-of-a-climate-scientist-b2bf0fcc2983

there are plenty of scientists that disagree on the level of human impact.

so when you say "climate change".
do you mean that climate changes? man made CC (how much?)? or catastrophic CC?

reply

It is amazing how much the media distorts the facts.

reply

No. Show us which step of the scientific method is “consensus”.

Show your work.

reply

They can't. They have nothing but headlines to back up their claims.

reply

Why are you reviving ancient threads?

reply

Ancient?
Geez... Way to make a guy feel his age.

reply

The Earths climate has been changing for billions of years.

https://www.kotatv.com/2020/09/07/anomalously-cold-weather-to-start-the-week/

A strong Canadian cold front will move south across the area today and tonight. Rain will develop behind the front and spread south. As temperatures cool, rain will change to snow in the Black Hills where more than 4 inches may fall by early Tuesday morning. Trace amounts of snow are possible on the plains, mixed with the rain. Also, several inches of snow could fall in southern Campbell County, Wyoming. Travel on your Tuesday morning commute could be treacherous in higher elevations.

reply

You damn Trumpsies shaddup. ElSofoque is right. Denying climate change is denying evolution. Totally the same thing. I believe in evolution therefore I believe in climate change. I know evolution exists because I noticed a certain (race) group that keep acting animalistic and congregate in animalistic-like behavior where they shout in a hoard as if like an evolution occurred in chimpanzees but didn't fully metastasize. The group then gets very violent and throw and destroy things minus the feces for the most part.

Also ElSofoque:
https://youtu.be/xtBxI_ydba4

reply

Yeah, the climate is changing. That's not the real question. The real question is is it man made or is it part of the natural cycle. Scientific data can't prove or disprove it's man made. However, let's assume it's man made for argument sake. If you can't get China to make any changes to their emissions, what do you do?

reply

In honesty I believe some of it IS man-made (not all), why wouldn't it be? Most of our vehicles burn gas and oil containing CO2. Let's not forget cows man, dem methane. How we hoard animals, bloat them up quickly while they eat, shit, sleep then repeat until slaughtered then rinse repeat.

reply

And you might be right. So the question is what can be done? Can the US alone affect change? I don't think so.

reply

We can only slow it down. The other option is radical transformation to renewables which also have their own side-effects on the environment. It may fix one thing but also harm another.

reply

The technology is not available to move to renewables as the sole source. Cost/benefit ratio compared to fossil fuels is not even close yet. Electric cars run off of Lithium Ion batteries, which the mining of pollutes the earth just as much as the cars gas burning cars they replace, if not more.

CA and their stupid policy to use renewables face rolling blackouts because the power usage is high during summer months. What kind of infrastructure imposing rolling blackouts on its citizens?

If people want a clean energy source, they must reintroduce nuclear power back into the equation. It produces zero to very little CO2 and the nuclear waste is small compared to the energy output it produces. What should be researched is a means to either recycle that waste or repurpose it for something.

reply

I think hybrids are a nice idea. Can use either gas or electric which is nice. If one runs out, switch to the other as backup. Imagine running out of gas in the middle of nowhere then having to use a battery that can be re-charged by the suns rays given some time. I think that's a cool survival backup.

reply

Actually, your examples proves the point that certain green energy inefficient. There's a reason why there aren't solar powered cars. There's a reason why cities that receive a lot of sun aren't purchasing solar panels.

The technology is good with advancements in batteries and using brakes to recharge is neat. Given the big picture of reducing emissions, it's a net zero in terms of the earth at best. If you buy a hybrid because it makes you feel better about the environment, then it's a smugmobile.

The hydrogen fuel cell car might be a better environmental alternative.

reply

I recently read that if you converted all of the US landmasses into solar panels it would still not be able to power even 1/2 of the US power grid.

reply

I do not believe in unguided evolution. Scientists cannot explain Nostradamus.

reply

Scientist also cannot explain what existed before the big bang.

reply