Why people deny the science of climate change

[hayseed]

Supposed to have a lot of snow this winter...

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Nope. They open your eyes to objective thought.

There is so much guessing, misdirection and hiding flaws in studies it seems to protect from either peer attack or protecting funding.

I love how your sites panic us about arctic ice yet is only based upon data since 1979.

Volcanic activity in Greenland and Antarctica is ignored in media.

All focus is on what if and models that only have ever failed.

But hey. Drive away debate by calling people deniers and closing your eyes and ears to contrary thought. Go to the GW religion sites to learn how to ignore debate.

The media isn't the science, and you know that. Besides, that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the cognitive dissonance that we see so often. Read the paper.

[HyperMOA]

Oh wonderful, avb3 is back. Does that mean RaisingRainbows is back on the bench?

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by avb3

It was not that long ago right on this forum that people en mass were denying that the climate was getting warmer. At least most have now accepted that it IS the case.

Yes it was the 98% percent of scientists that agree and saw it start to cool so they immediately named it climate change not global warming. That way if it rains one day and its dry the next we can squeeze more money out of Joe Blow.

"What you are denying the weather changed today, for shame!!! 98% of us dependent on your tax dollars agreed it changed. You are the real problem here, you, you, denier. Oh, what's that? You say you would like proof. Well, I just so happen to have a model I whipped up on the toilet this morning; its saying that mankind ends in 14.1 years of a new form of carbon herpes if we don't tax the hell out of you and spend the money on ridiculous technologies that have poorer carbon footprints; rather than refining the technology that works. If you still aren't sold, I will unleash my army of idiots in Hollywood. Their only redeeming quality is they can repeat sentences over and over until the twitter zombie generation believes it. To hell with critical thinking and your capacity for abstract thought!!!" said 98% of scientists

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by avb3

The media isn't the science, and you know that. Besides, that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the cognitive dissonance that we see so often. Read the paper.

Hardly, only the one that were maybe arguing with you on the topic.
There are a whole bunch more that won't even give threads like this the time of day.
Cat

[propliner]

I normally don't pay threads like this any heed but this duck guy is really chapping my hide with all the climate whatever religionist propaganda. The cognitive dissonance rests in the lap of those who stand to gain the most from falsified studies... the scientists. How may careers have been built on this house of cards by flakes who graduated from institutions of higher brainwashing? For now on, I'm calling the climate religionists the deniers. Deniers of reality.

[TrollGRG]

Just to put it into perspective

99.99% of everything that ever lived is now dead thanks to mother nature.

Canada has 1/10th of 1% of the the worlds population and you tell me that if I use 3 squares of toilet paper instead of 4 that I can save the world.

Even if we could, should we?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Oh wonderful, avb3 is back. Does that mean RaisingRainbows is back on the bench?

Hugs and kisses to you also.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by TrollGRG

Just to put it into perspective

99.99% of everything that ever lived is now dead thanks to mother nature.

Canada has 1/10th of 1% of the the worlds population and you tell me that if I use 3 squares of toilet paper instead of 4 that I can save the world.

Even if we could, should we?

When one realizes that the 4th square goes to activists and some select businesses, then it all makes sense.

[bb356]

Originally Posted by hayseed

Supposed to have a lot of snow this winter...

yup

[Rockjockey]

And 40 years ago we were going to be plunged into an ice age. What is scary is that if you read enough there is references to the need to push democracy aside in the name of fighting climate change.
Here is a good overview of the 1970's "sky is falling" fear mongering.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...n-ice-age.html

RJ

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Yes it was the 98% percent of scientists that agree and saw it start to cool so they immediately named it climate change not global warming. That way if it rains one day and its dry the next we can squeeze more money out of Joe Blow.

"What you are denying the weather changed today, for shame!!! 98% of us dependent on your tax dollars agreed it changed. You are the real problem here, you, you, denier. Oh, what's that? You say you would like proof. Well, I just so happen to have a model I whipped up on the toilet this morning; its saying that mankind ends in 14.1 years of a new form of carbon herpes if we don't tax the hell out of you and spend the money on ridiculous technologies that have poorer carbon footprints; rather than refining the technology that works. If you still aren't sold, I will unleash my army of idiots in Hollywood. Their only redeeming quality is they can repeat sentences over and over until the twitter zombie generation believes it. To hell with critical thinking and your capacity for abstract thought!!!" said 98% of scientists

You just won my IQOTD award.

(Internet Quote of the Day).

[happy honker]

For those who say climate change occurs naturally, which of course it does, how can you also say that industrialization has had NO adverse impact on environment and therefore influencing and accelerating change in climate?

Why are you guys so jacked to deny industries influence on climate?
Is it because you think money is being wasted on regulations, red tape, unnecessary and foolish environmental protection?
Is it because those same regulations and red tape are a pain in the butt in your workplace?

I would think there has to be a middle ground somewhere, but this argument seems so polarized one extreme to the other.

I guess I'm not up on the O/P's history of posting on this subject, but man you guys seem pretty rabid to attack his point of view, and I'm just wondering where that's coming from?

[catnthehat]

Industrialization is to blame for sure .
So then I suggest we all go back to the Stone Age .
Cat

[happy honker]

Aw, see that's what I mean...no ones suggesting go back to the stone age, but us as consumers do influence industry.
Do my kids really need 20 different transformer toys made out of plastic? Do I need 3 TV's in my house or is 1 just fine?

It's possible that the horse has already left the barn, and our grandkids world will look like a Mad Max movie, but I think there's a lot of middle ground where we all should consider these issues and do our part even if it seems small and insignificant.

But for now, the hypocrite in me is gonna hop in my 8 cyl truck and take the dog out and chase some grouse...the leaves are off the trees a week or so early around here.
Maybe I'll drive 95 instead of 120, enjoy the view and save a little fuel.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by happy honker

...
But for now, the hypocrite in me is gonna hop in my 8 cyl truck and take the dog out and chase some grouse...the leaves are off the trees a week or so early around here.
Maybe I'll drive 95 instead of 120, enjoy the view and save a little fuel.

Don't blame yourself too hard, at least your not using a jet to fly to Paris with your family, photographer and who knows who else for a conservationist party . Or to Australia like Suzuki to repeat "We don't know" few times for a healthy speaking fee.

[tchammer]

Do I think climate change is caused by nature? Yep
Do I think climate change is caused by man? Yep
Do I think man is part of nature? Yep
Do I think that nature will decide the course of this planet over time? Yep
Do I KNOW that in the grand scheme of things the most that mankind will ever be is a blip on the radar in the timeline of nature and this planet? Yep

The vanity and delusion of mankind to think that any of it truly matters in the grand scheme of things is staggering. Picture this. A sentient species was living on the planet when the dinosaurs were here. They exterminated a bunch of species through their lifestyle. Flash forward to today. Did it really matter? Mankind is part of nature no matter what we do or think, and Time will march on long after we are a footnote.

[avb3]

Food for thought:

Julia Roberts narrates "Nature" by Conservation International. A 2 minute video, yet powerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVLcj-XKnM

[nekred]

OK scientists, When has the earths climate ever been constant?

[nekred]

What scientific paper has conclusively proven anthropomorphic climate change?

[Opa]

With the "duck's" firm belief in climate change, that change will now obviously assist him & his mentor Suzuki a great deal on their flight south to visit their hero Gore. Not only will they be flying higher from the warmer updrafts, seeing the results of even more warming, and probably moving even faster, given the prevailing winds and personal propulsion, to meet up with their hero sooner!!!!!

[CNP]

Originally Posted by nekred

What scientific paper has conclusively proven anthropomorphic climate change?

AGW you mean? It has not and cannot be proven. https://depositsmag.com/2016/02/23/h...nge-is-normal/

[CNP]

Originally Posted by avb3

Food for thought:

Julia Roberts narrates "Nature" by Conservation International. A 2 minute video, yet powerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVLcj-XKnM

As if Julia Roberts adds value lol

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Why do people believe in climate change? Because people have been taught that humans can do no good and the only possible effect we can have on the planet is negative. Climate change has as many positives as negatives, the information pushed on the public is misleading and ambiguous depending on the bias and motives of the pusher. Climate change has been blown completely out of proportion and has been falsely placed on a rung of the ladder far above it's importance. It has been placed on the public agenda to divert attention from decades of ongoing wars, starvation, disease, etc. If we could concentrate on correcting the problems that could be easily dealt with if corruption were removed from governments then we would have near limitless resources and finances to spend on environmental innovation. But no, there is far to many trillions spent on the industrial military complex and the powers that be refuse to take their hands out of that apparently bottomless cookie jar. If the people could get the governments/ leaders of the world under control and dispose of the majority of current politicians, bankers, and the behind the scenes string pulling corrupt puppeteers. If the truth about the worldwide situation were exposed then things could change. Until the political structure of the major cardplayers powers are taken away and replaced with benevolent for the people political themes nothing is going to change. Instead we are presently being lobbied and deceived by these criminals into supporting an even more corrupt One World Gov't /United Nations who want to shift power from individual nations and transfer it to one central international governing body which will make corruption even easier to orchestrate than at present.

TA DA!!!!!!!

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

Food for thought:

Julia Roberts narrates "Nature" by Conservation International. A 2 minute video, yet powerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVLcj-XKnM

She has a powerful voice for sure, too bad she is just as Hippocratic as Gore, Suzuki or DiCaprio. sounds a lot like one of these veteran or poor kid commercials from "charity organisation" which spends all of the charity money on self-promotion and salaries to headquarters.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ak-71

She has a powerful voice for sure, too bad she is just as Hippocratic as Gore, Suzuki or DiCaprio. sounds a lot like one of these veteran or poor kid commercials from "charity organisation" which spends all of the charity money on self-promotion and salaries to headquarters.

You might want to look at the on the ground and policy work Conservation International does. I suspect you will agree with most, if not all, of it.

[ak-71]

I was talking about Julia, she comes second on a Hollywood Climate Hypocrites list in Google

[Five]

I love when people randomly attach the word "science" to any position they have to try and manufacture credibility.

[Roughneck12]

I deny manmade climate change as hysterical bunk.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by avb3

You might want to look at the on the ground and policy work Conservation International does. I suspect you will agree with most, if not all, of it.

Nothing wrong with what these organizations are doing as long as they are using money and donations to do what they say they are and not pocketing it. I don't trust any organization unless I can see the balance sheet, who the principal operators are and whom they are connected to. I think few if anybody here has malevolent intentions as far as the environment is concerned.

AVB you seem to have the viewpoint that if a person isn't a rabid environmental climate change supporter then they must be anti environment. Because someone doesn't believe the cry wolf doomsday crowd does not mean they are a bigger part of the problem than you are. Again you ignore your own contributions to defiling our environment which most here know are much greater than the average citizen your point fingers at. As if your belief in climate change or global warming absolves you of any responsibility and makes it ok for you to pollute more than me. Better go buy some more carbon credits and spend some time in the environmental confession booth. Wouldn't want to see you end up in the fires of environmental purgatory because of your hypocrisy.