It makes no sense, the scientific consensus is unanimous and the evidence concrete, so what gives? Seems like the deniers are more driven by politics than by actual scientific research.
shareI can understand why people who profit from fossil fuels, industrial farming, etc attempt to deny climate change. It's in their interest. But I don't understand why ordinary people deny it. Presumably they've been brainwashed by the right wing media.
shareIt's not about denial. It's about scamming America and Europe while letting everyone else go off scot-free, and profiting from people's ignorance. That, and making doomsday predictions based on emotions, rather than scientific fact, that turn out never coming to pass.
By the way, how's the surfing in downtown Manhattan? And when are the scuba tours for Venice gonna start?
the scientific consensus is unanimous
the evidence concrete
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcBXmj1nMTQ
shareyour point being.
I'm not bothered one way or the other about climate change.
Just pointing out your statements are untrue.
Unanimous means everyone, when everyone in the scientific community doesn't belive in man made climate change.
The evidence cannot be concrete if the scientific community are not unanimous , the statements contradict each other.
There are a couple of problems with the al-Jazeera video. One is that the people they quoted as 'concerned' are all staunch AGW advocates and they list the skeptics as part of the problem.
One other thing is that carbon dioxide is a trace gas. It has less than 500 ppm, and is less than .05% of the atmosphere by volume. So, I don't see how a trace gas able to have that much of an effect on the climate.
Until some of the louder voices make an effort to have a smaller carbon footprint, (IOW, they practice what they preach) I will remain convinced that AGW is a scam.
Because it's tied to their political agenda, and now that they've dug their heels in so deep they can't back down. They see it as the right losing if they admit it as fact
shareSure but the left has also hijacked climate change to push their own agenda.
shareYou can make a pretty penny, scamming people into paying exorbitant fees for committing the "sin" of polluting, rather than actually solving the problem for real. You can make more if you're paid to leave the Chinese and Indians alone about it.
shareI'm not even a leftist, I'm as ambivalent to politics as they come. I was just giving an answer to your question, and this is why climate change is a hot topic when it really shouldn't be. I would feel the same way if the left was saying the earth was flat
shareLOL. Scientific Consensus is not factual science. You can screech until the cows come home and it won't change a thing.
shareIt’s not that the climate isn’t changing, it’s that the Earth goes through cycles of ice ages and heating up, back and forth. Remember how much of North America was covered in glaciers during the last ice age? Yet it got warmer and warmer, well before industry and cars. There scientific evidence of multiple ice ages followed by warming periods. Now, many studies are politically motivated and funded by people who want the studies to come back with results saying it’s all mankind’s fault. I’m not saying that we have no impact in the Earth’s climate, but I feel that it is exaggerated. But all of that aside, regardless of our opinions on that, a lot of people are disagreeing with how these “climate activists” are trying to go about making change. I’m all for helping the environment, but not when this “help” means screwing the U.S. over while doing nothing about the real major polluters such as China, India, developing countries that don’t even try to not pollute. Look up facts and statistics of how much pollution the U.S. produces, then compare it to other countries, while keeping in mind population and economic size differences. Why should the U.S., who already is producing significantly less pollution and continues to do better and better, bend over backwards to screw itself and it’s people over while other, way worse polluters do nothing to improve on this and just get worse. Regardless of you’re opinion on manmade climate change, that aspect cannot be ignored. This is all just my opinion, so please, in the spirit of what the U.S. is supposed to stand for, do not respond to this with insults and personal attacks while ignoring any points I made. I’m all for constructive arguments/conversation about this topic. Not people covering their ears while screaming “you’re wrong! You’re stupid! Idiot! I’m right you’re wrong!” And only reading info that backs up what they already believe. Which seems to happen with everyone I speak to about any mildly controversial topic now.
shareWell said, Juno. 🙂
shareYes, exactly, all that. It's just a manipulation to prey upon people's guilt. Especially 1st worlders.
shareVery true. And when you realize that the current "climate change" is really just a rebranding of "global warming", because when you look at what changed in terms of what the "changers" wanted from when it was the "warmers" it was absolutely nothing. They wanted people to do the exact same thing. Well then the question is why did they change the name from "warming" to "change"? That was all because they made lots of predictions and those prediction failed to come to fruition when they claimed they would. It was a bit like the old end of the world minister that tells his congregation the world is going to end in 5 years and then when it doesn't end in 5 years he just sets out a new date and keeps telling the followers the same thing with only a new date. Would the typical person with any common sense think that the minister should be believed? Of course not, which is why it is so baffling for "warmers" to keep believing their nonsense that was already debunked when Florida and New York City didn't get swallowed up in the ocean as the "warmers" claimed would happen.
The real question that should be asked is why do people keep following this "climate change" nonsense when anyone with a brain capable of remembering that ancient soothsayer Al Gore should realize that he was wrong. You don't have to go back and pull actual temperature data and then look at the data that was used in the studies to show that it was manipulated and that the studies were not actually based on real data, you just have to go stream Al Gore's documentary and watch it... and if you want to get drunk take a drink every time he makes a prediction that didn't actually come true, you won't make it beyond the halfway point of the movie.
Climate change is not nonsense, it is quite real. The problem is the lunatics like AOC and Greta along the climate alarmists that hijack the issue for their own political ends but the science is there and it shows that the climate change is happening and that a great cause of it are humans.
shareNo, there is no proof that humans are a great cause of the climate. The proof of this is that Earth has been booth colder and warmer in the past when there was merely a fraction of the number of humans you have today. CO2 has also been both greater and far less in the past, this was before the internal combustion engine. Then of course you have the problem with "adjusted" data... which is more properly called manipulated data. If you use actual temperatures you see nothing close to the trend that the climate hoaxer show in thier studies, you only see these upward trends when you systematically lower the pre 2000 temps and raise the post 2000 temps which is what NOAA has done, and all under the guise of adjusting incorrect data. However it boggles the mind that anyone could believe that temps that were incorrect were always wrong to the high side prior to 2000 and always wrong on the low side after 2000... the only thing that making these adjustments does is make it look like there is global warming.. But if those temps were actually correct then Florida would have vanished and NYC would be underwater... But when the "adjusted" data was just fucking made up to support a fake study then those things don't happen. How in the hell can you be so stupid as to believe this nonsense? If you stick a thermometer in a pot of water on the stove and it says the water is only 80 degrees but you see it boiling what do you think the problem is? Is the water actually hotter than 80 degrees or did the rules of nature change? If you believe in the climate hoax then you would have to believe that the laws of nature changed and water boils at 80 degrees... intelligent people know the thermometer is wrong and in climate change intelligent people know the studies are simply wrong because nothing that they said would happen has happened.
shareStop listening to Tony Heller's cherry picking of the data. Listen instead to more impartial scientists like Judith Curry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Bw52FjYi4
This is a very good video explaining the issue at hand.
I never heard of Tony Heller until you mentioned him. I have used temperature data to price weather derivative since 2006, to that end the company I worked for purchased historical raw weather data from NOAA, when you used that data you saw a recurring cycle of weather that synced up fairly well with solar and ocean cycles, but no grand trend that you get if you use the adjusted data. The reality is the data should have never been adjusted period. If you have a random error in your dataset that is clearly outside reality you delete that point you don't adjust it. A model can work perfectly fine with a few temps on any given day being missing when you are dealing with thousands of points every day, you could even completely ignore them and leave them because a mistake would be assumed to have a 50/50 chance of being high or low and would even out when you are looking at several decades of data.
The problem you have with listening to someone like Judith Curry is that she is pushing an agenda... the real question that none of these climate hoaxers are willing to address is what does their models look like when you use the raw unadjusted data. And they don't address that question because if they did they would be forced to admit that the global warming was not happening.
What agenda is Judith Curry pushing? She is not a climate alarmist, she in fact had to quit her job because of this.
shareIt's also worth noting that earth goes through natural cycles of extinction. So humans going extinct would by a natural cycle. Does that change the way you feel about it? There is also a huge difference between the climate changing over millions of years, and over 10s of years. It would be kind of like saying that pressing my hand against your face is the same as punching you in the face. Technically I am doing the same thing, but the speed at which my fist is moving makes kind of a difference.
While India an China are polluting more than the US right now, the US has been polluting for two centuries, as has Europe. China and India are catching up. Also, China and India both signed up to the Paris agreement. The US is the only major country to withdraw.
It is true that climate science is nowhere near as accurate as leftwing activists insist. It's also true that consensus is reinforced by the fact that disagreement with the consensus is considered heresy at this point. HOWEVER, given the consequences of the worst case scenario, even if there is only a 5% chance that it comes to pass, how can you say that that is acceptable? If there was a 5% chance of a meteor hitting the earth, I doubt you would be so blase about it(that would also be a natural occurrence by the way). Not to mention that green energy has many benefits regardless of climate change. It doesn't pollute our air and cause asthma epidemics. It would put an end to Oil wars. It would reduce the cost of energy and also stabilize the cost. It would create jobs. So why would anyone oppose it? There are only up sides an no down sides to reducing emissions. Unless you have shares in an oil company.