Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Mostly due to the bulls*** carbon tax scams looking to enrich private citizens at the expense of other citizens.

I could just be wrong but weren't the bulls*** carbon tax scams proposed by the people against Kyoto Protocols, offered as an alternative? Basically the same people behind the Human caused climate change denial in the first place?

a reply to: pthena

If you mean people like Al Gore who is Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype I guess so.

But you did not mean that, did you?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Jonjonj

Are they really or got BS called out instead? Not that you were in the midst of an debate until you've dicided to pull the 'reading comprehension issue' from a list of possible assaults, presumably to bail out the fast and whiny way.

Nope, must be me. Silly PubOps pulled off another PsyOps. Fricken hilarious, I love it!

Whut? Just hit the little green man and feckin read what I have posted...damn!!!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But you did not mean that, did you?

No. I'm talking about the fact that from the late 1990s to now the United States has completely isolated itself from the rest of the World and lives in it's own little bubble with respect to green house gas emissions. U.S. citizens are only allowed to look at U.S. produced plans and solutions as if no one else in the World has anything to say worthy of U.S. notice.

Against Kyoto, some bright person decided to deny human caused climate change and proposed that even if, the U.S. should adopt a go it alone attitude. That's where the carbon tax stuff comes in.

originally posted by: pthena
No. I'm talking about the fact that from the late 1990s...

You mean when Al Gore was Vice President of Murica? That 1990's?

Climate change, aka Global warming aka Global ice age (circa 1976) is a recurring farce of how to convince the people of the world to give up their freedom. That's my position and here are some facts below.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We agree on a crooked system at least. That's a start and it's obviously a good choice to stay vigilant either way, but red-tape mismanagement in form of taxes doesn't negate the effect of carbon dioxide. Does it?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Taxes do not negate carbon whether managed properly or not.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You mean when Al Gore was Vice President of Murica? That 1990's?

Well how very Orwellian of you. Did the 1990s get dropped down the memory hole?

Why the United States did not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol: German, Norwegian, and US perspectives
According to two-level game theory, negotiators tailor agreements at the international level to be ratifiable at the domestic level. This did not happen in the Kyoto negotiations, however, in the US case. We interviewed 26 German, Norwegian, and US participants in and observers of the climate negotiations concerning their views on three explanations for why the United States did not become a party to Kyoto.
Explanation 1 argues that Kyoto delegations mistakenly thought the Senate was bluffing when adopting Byrd–Hagel.
Explanation 2 contends that Europeans preferred a more ambitious agreement without US participation to a less ambitious agreement with US participation. Finally, explanation
3 suggests that in Kyoto the Clinton–Gore administration gave up on Senate ratification, and essentially pushed for an agreement that would provide them a climate-friendly face. While all explanations received some support from interviewees,
explanation 1
and (particularly) explanation 3 received considerably more support than explanation 2.

originally posted by: pthena
Well how very Orwellian of you. Did the 1990s get dropped down the memory hole?

Not at all. Did you catch the name of the Vice President mentioned in your quote?

Does it rhyme with Mal Whore?

a reply to: Jonjonj

Yes Sir, Sir Jon Sir! Been there, done that. Now hit the green ATSlien and read mine maybe? It's never too late for an entertaining debate.




a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're no climate change denier the way I see it, that's somehow disapointing and relieving at the same time.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did you catch the name of the Vice President mentioned in your quote?

Sure I did.
I don't think that: "Gore spoke about climate change, Gore profits from climate change, therefore human caused climate change is a hoax" stands up under logical scrutiny.

Clinton-Gore did not dispute human caused climate change.
Bush-Cheney did deny human caused climate change.

The crap that human caused climate change deniers spew now is the half remembered propaganda churned out under Bush-Cheney administration.

In July 1997, five months before the Kyoto meeting, the Senate passed the Byrd–Hagel resolution (hereafter ‘Byrd–Hagel’), stating that:

the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol … which would (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol … also mandates new specific scheduled commitments … for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or (B) result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.

1 Byrd–Hagel was not legally binding; rather, it was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. However, while Senate ratification requires a two-thirds majority, Byrd–Hagel was passed by a 95–0 vote. Thus, to achieve ratification, the US administration would have had to change the minds of at least 67 senators ― a formidable task. Unsurprisingly, President Bush, when repudiating Kyoto in February 2001, echoed the requirements of
Byrd–Hagel: ‘I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.’
ibid

my problem with it is the that the people that push climate change are pushing that it is 100% man caused.

I believe climate change is happening BUT everything i have seen shows me that in the americas only about 10% is man made with about 30 to 40% caused by china and india.
The rest of climate change is not man made and is natural.

I am also seeing strange things about how temperatures are recorded.

What is the higher "temperature"??
100° with 5% humidity
Or 100° with 95% humidity.

Lets see how many get this right.
And yes its a trick question.

originally posted by: pthena
I don't think that: "Gore spoke about climate change, Gore profits from climate change, therefore human caused climate change is a hoax" stands up under logical scrutiny.

The axiom that many people profit from it, including that scumbag Gore, means that the money most certainly influences the data and I question just how much humans are responsible. If you do not think that this is a big business before it is some sort of planetary remediation I have this lovely bridge nearby in Brooklyn that I would be thrilled to convey to your possession post haste.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Say high to our newbie and cut him some slack, will ya? Buddha!

How much slack? quote, "I literally made an account to say, how the **** can some of you ******* idiots even plausibly deny that humans are causing Earth irreparable harm." Sounds a lot like Gavin Schmuck to me.
Apart from the fact that he/she/it transgresses the ATS rules, not that I would like to listen to some more from he/she/it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
May I ask the reason that you are resisting the idea of Climate Change? Why must you denounce and deny it?
Do you just not give a rip????

Things the establishment wants us to believe are rarely ever they way they portray. Even when they are, their solutions are deceptive and self serving.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I think you all are just about some sort of "the money" thing.

Exactly what I meant by deceptive, self serving solutions. To a problem that is definitely NOT served to us accurately.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The Earth is being raped. There is no question about that. Alternative energy sources and methods are huge potentials - my daughter is a Materials Science Engineer. Solar has been in the wings since forever - back in the 70s we had environmental movements, you know.

No question. Alternative energy kicks ass. But we won't be utilizing it until it can be properly monopolized, though. That's why we didn't have it in the 70's. It was too soon. There might have been a free market! God forbid!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Just because your upbringing didn't provide you with knowledge about how it all works does not mean that it doesn't. You are denying basic civilization data. But you don't have to. You can learn what's all about the windmills all over western Kansas and eastern Colorado. You can learn about the square miles of solar panels that exist around the world.
You can catch up - and do it!!!
Just try!!

First of all, don't be a condescending asshole. Those who disagree with your point of view are not stupid, and people that behave as such should be b!tch-slapped with a shovel. This is not a comment section on Youtube; This is ATS. We have higher standards. We show respect and trade ideas, so don't be a dick.

The truth is not measured in mass appeal, or number of adherents. There are serious flaws in the whole climate change thing. We are being given deceptive information. Those pictures of melting icebergs are taken in the precarious corner of Antarctica during summer months. Polar bears are used like the global warming version of starving kids in Africa when in reality, there are more polar bears today than ever. Google that. I heard that the reason they changed the name was changed from global warming to climate change was because the earth spent the years following Al Gore's movie cooling down, not heating up. Scientists say we are overdue for another Ice Age, not Crematoria. Besides, climates change. nothing is static.

There is also evidence that planets are heating up all across the solar system, not just the Earth. Conflicts with the above, i know. Anyways, who pollutes the air more? Our cars, or Al Gore's private jet zooming around the world every day? Why the hell should I give him my money? The govt already takes too much. That is the real reason they cry about the environment so much. They want more of our money. Greedy bastards would probably embezzle it anyways. But here's the cherry on top:

Fossil Fuels are not the biggest cause of global warming. Raising animals is a million times as bad as all our cars and jets. Do you have any idea how much methane cows release? THEY OVERSHADOW EVERYTHING LIKE A MONOLITH. FOSSIL FUELS DON'T COMPARE. If anybody really cares about the environment, they would become vegetarian. So unless you're going to give up meat, I don't want to hear a damn thing about the environment. That's like telling people not to drink soda cause it's unhealthy while chain-smoking cigarettes.

a reply to: smurfy

Well. I would agree if there wasn't a lenghthly explanation to catch the drift. Kinda remarkable how one can not be offended from the level of ignorance displayed in this thread, innit?

Being in my head, I have to wonder quite a lot about many things.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I added another quote to my last post.

The axiom that many people profit from it, including that scumbag Gore, means that the money most certainly influences the data

There is Worldwide data available from non-U.S. and non-U.S. corporate interest based sources. Excuse me if I don't do your research for you.

If you do not think that this is a big business before it is some sort of planetary remediation I have this lovely bridge nearby in Brooklyn that I would be thrilled to convey to your possession post haste.

Have I disputed that big business desires to profit or that they have lobbyists? No. I have not.

Since you'd like to sell me a bridge, I will call our discussion quit.

Presenting new information to BuzzyWigs

I'm going to make the most of this double post to say a few words in regards to BuzzyWigs.

It seems to me that she was exposed to (what seems to her) a crazy point of view that she can't fathom, so she comes on here to find out why people might believe such ludicrous ideas. She comes with ridicule, and maybe scorn, but not malice. She asks these things to learn, without any expectation of her views being changed.

I say this because I remember you from other threads that you may or may not have started.
In all my posts, I've meant you no offense, and I hope that we may learn from each other. Nothing I say is to attack you or talk spit.

Mods, go ahead and delete this post, if you'd like. I won't cry ^_^