Why people don't believe in climate science

Post Reply New Topic

"Climate science" doesn't really exist, it was made up with the specific purpose to push the AGW theory. It's rampant confirmation bias at work, of course they believe it and advocate for it politically because they wouldn't have a job otherwise. Computer models of what climate was like a 100+ years ago is more than useless; I'm not damning humanity to a vow of poverty because computer models, I'm not surrendering my freedoms to some faceless global government bureaucracy to manage for me because of computers models. These Malthusian death cultists who have latched onto this global warming idea are just as wrong as they were back in the 18th century, its anti-human to its core.

Climates change, people move, ecosystems adapt or die, its always been that way since the beginning of time. The earth has been hotter and colder than it is now, I don't know of any heavy industry back in the Mesozoic era that may of caused that do you? We're not immune to these planetary changes and there isn't reason to think we can stop it from happening, human civilization hasn't existed very long and it's just arrogant of us to think we're the ultimate end all be all of existence.

We are in an ice age right now and have been for over 2.5 million years. It's is a big error to mistaken interglacial warm periods as being between ice ages -- they are a part of the ice age. There is no sign that this ice age is anywhere near ending. If the past is any indication, it won't end for millions of years.

And as the Younger Dryas, it is thought that the warming was something on the order of about 15 F over a very small number of years -- more than all the expected warming from Global Warming. That climate change was far greater and faster than anything we will see from Global Warming.

Climate is The Will of The Great Mother.

First you ignore her, destroy all life, then when you get what you sowed, try to replace her.

Return the seas filled with fish, the plains covered in Buffalo, forests where trees die of old age,

flocks that blotted out the sun for days in their passing, the flowers that fed the bees and butterflies.

The Fever is coming, the Wrath of the Mother, she will sweat out this disease.

You have murdered the Art of Creation, now it is your turn to die.

In just over two hundred years you killed the people that had kept this land for twelve thousand years,

you killed every living thing, produced a desert for your Sand Boy God. The land will be watered with your salty tears.

Believe in Climate Science? Belief is an Act of Faith, I have no faith in the words of the people who brought this to pass. Our world was destroyed, there is no way you could restore it.

You have done nothing to change your ways, now you claim power over Creation, but only if I Believe?

I Believe you are Shitan, the evil of the desert, who wishes to destroy all life, all beauty, all joy.

Want to create a scientific fact?
Just make a video!

eric76,

I don't know. Why don't you watch the video and find out? Go read something that shows why 97% of climatologists agree that the modern climate change is anthropogenic. It's not my job to hold your hand.

And I must say, Quit quibbling!

I don't disagree with the idea that some or most of the warming is anthropogenic. On the contrary, with my views on the subject if I was a climate scientist with published papers on it, I would almost surely be one of the 97%. How much is due to man's activities rather than natural causes is far from proven.

Remember that the 97% consensus is only that global warming is at least partially caused by mankind. For what it's worth, there are some serious objections to the study that found a 97% consensus. For example, the study's author and participants reportedly wanted to show as strong a consensus as possible rather than being arms length observers.

What I disagree with is the notion that it is a disaster. Without the "sky is falling" type panic, it is more likely to be a blessing.

As far as youtube videos, they are often either funny or stupid, but are rarely enlightening.

Global cooling denial is the most severe form of climate change denial.

There is evidence of widespread extinction in North America at the time.

I'm under the impression that the major problem with extinctions in the Younger Dryas was when entering the period as temperatures dropped, possibly at about the same speed as they increased at the end of the Younger Dryas. Also, extinctions during the drought that accompanied the Younger Dryas.

In other words, I think that the extinctions in the Younger Dryas were strongly aligned with the cooling part of it, not with the warming back at the end of the Younger Dryas.

Is my understanding wrong?

The Clovis Comet happened.

I believe in climate change, and I believe we have an impact on it. I don't believe the predictions will be 100% accurate, or know the direction for sure. We weren't the first to have an impact on the environment, all organisms have an impact and still do. We are not separate from nature, we aren't the only animals to create our own micro environments/climates

Life is not the only factor in environment either.

We aren't saving the earth, the earth can survive us all, we may need to save ecosystems. We are not sure how many ecosystems we depend on.

I believe in being responsible and pragmatic.

We need to stop the Us vs Them attitude, that isn't going to win anyone over.

Primitivism isn't going to reverse climate change. I'm skeptical about certain green practices although well meaning.

However why be be wasteful, inefficient just becuase you can? Nobody is perfect, and we have to live and have some standard of life, but gratuitous wastage is just stupid.

"Sustainability" is a loaded word. Climate has never ever been sustainable. Nature is not really sustainable. We have been lucky to have had a window.

Climate change is going to happen anyway, whether we do anything or not. it has happened in the past and is inevitable.

It is more important to be prepared. Geo-engineering is very controversial but we need to start tentative research towards it, in case it is necessary.

We need to look at different ways of living under different climates.

We need to look at alternative source of energy, it is just common sense not to be dependent on one source of energy. I would love to see quantum an fusion technologies.

Wind farms, tidal, hydro electric, geothermal. These are all very well and we should use them where they make sense. However they are not he whole solution.

Greens have flirted with nuclear (fission). There is a taboo around it, however for all of the fall outs, it has been the cleanest source of energy we have had so far. I'm not saying there isn't more that can be done to make it safer, but to dismiss it out of hand is silly.

In many respects we need to be more radical, think outside the box, and be less divisive.

The Earth isn't this cuddly self-balancing thing, that somehow only we have the power to mess up. The earth has had multiple incarnations.

What is your idea of "poverty?"

Your mind has been so conditioned you do not realize what real poverty is. If you have enough land and a clean water source, you are not impoverished and if you can contribute to keep the water clean, your descendants will be alright for a while, perhaps millions of years.
Land + water is your greatest resource. If you deplete these, you simply won't have the ability to sustain your existence in its present form.

I understand water is the most important resource we have and it should be number one priority. Do not take it for granted because if you do, it will not be available.

People on The Right like to lament government debt they will leave their offspring but did you ever consider land + water debt, as in, fewer places with the elements they will need for basic survival? That's a worse debt than anything monetary even though the wasting of natural resources and debt accumulation could be related.

The biggest problem we face is this persistent idea that MONEY is valuable when it's actually land + water that hold the value. Can you eat and drink money?

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 18 Apr 2015, 8:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

What kind of extinction in North America because where I live there's lots of wildlife and most of them are not considered threatened species. If you are talking about the oceans, might be a different matter because many of the fish and marine mammals are sensitive to levels of acidity and temperature.

You seem to be confusing climate with weather. Weather is harder to predict because it can change hourly. Climate change is about observing trends over long periods of time. As others have posted, these scientists are talking about trends throughout decades, not predicting the weather next week. Scientists also trace global warming back to western expansion in the US, since so many trees were cut down to make towns and farms. But, of course, the trend toward warming has increased much more recently.

***

As far as the deniers go, I would say that it's them I don't believe in. I think many politicians and businesses don't really deny global warming (even though they will publicly). They want to make their money now and not worry about the problem, or realize they can make money in the future by creating "solutions" to problems people face from global warming. If they really thought the idea was so silly, why not pay for some impartial scientists to prove that it is wrong, so then we can all move on? The false beliefs that we progress, that science can only offer solutions, and irrational fear of the government are what fuel the denial. These people think the government is just trying to control them, but business is a form of governance, and businesses which help cause global warming will create more problems than the government. Business also has so much influence over government in America that I'm not sure why people differentiate between the two.

Also never underestimate people's hatred of equality. The idea of us collectively moving toward a common social status level is one thing that scares so many deniers. They need to realize that the problem with capitalism is that it works, and it is essentially the same has having a society run by gambling addicts. And the difference between capitalism and socialism is that in capitalism we tell people they could be rich, when in fact they probably won't. But the end results don't seem that different. Debating the two has become another useless distraction from the real, shared problem in America.

What it boils down to is, how much (future) land can be used to grow food, how much water can be used to drink, how much air can be used to breathe?
How much of that do you want to leave your great great grandkids?

That's a hypothesis. At best, you can say that it may have happened.