Climate Change Denial: Why?

straw man argument. No one denies the climate is changing, the earth has been warming since the last ice age. It's the "MAN MADE" part that many do not agree with.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I have absolutely zero belief in AGW, and it angers me greatly when people who do believe claim themselves to be morally superior etc. This is what you're doing...

Along with taking credit for your daughter's possible future accomplishments.

You're showing large amounts of smug superiority and taking credit preemptively for things your daughter may accomplish in the future. Your entire attitude and handling of responses to this thread drip with selfishness and self righteousness without actually DOING ANYTHING YOURSELF.

Personally I'm a conservationist, and cautious in my daily life about what I do and buy... Do you know why I don't start self aggrandizing threads to show my moral superiority?

Because I'm just a guy trying to leave the world a little better than I left it, and nothing about this is special or remarkable. I don't need or want recognition, because what I do is the bare minimum a good human should do.

All that said, as a DIY engineering type I do actively look to find solutions that could reduce the impact and consumption required to live a comfortable and reasonably easy life. When my friends and I achieve success, which we will eventually, we're going to open source our best work...

Will we do our best to parlay kit sales, consulting on implementations, and other things?

ABSOLUTELY

There is no harm in seeking rewards and a decent living from your work, but we never lose sight of why we're doing what we do.

Try doing more yourself, and expecting less recognition for your accomplishments and maybe you will get some respect.

P.s. mother earth news is crap, and lies just as much if not FAR MORE than people who don't believe what you do.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I wish I read through the thread before replying. You got your head stuck in the sand, lady. They are giving you the answers you seek. Some of these replies are gold. You are literally guilty of everything you accuse the deniers of. PLEASE ask me how, and I will not hesitate to show you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

what you have to ask yourself is, who are these people who keep demanding for everyone to believe in their new religion? A religion it is. one based on false premises and lies, fudged data, deleted raw temperature data, etc. These are the same type of members, and people, who want to laugh and claim all other religions are a myth, yet these same people claim their own "New Age religion" is the right one. if you don't believe and approve of their "mitigation schemes' you get branded as a "climate change denier". When in reality most of us are only denying the claim that mankind is responsible. They even try humiliation tactics against those of us who don't buy into their New Age religious hoax, in the minds of these people everyone must believe, even if you are forced to do it. After all, in their heads they believe "they are doing the right thing".

These days I can't make out any more the true shills working for the establishment, from the simply lost people seeking for ANY cause, even a false one, to follow either to deal with their rebel stage, or those who simply want attention and to fit in a crowd of similar people looking for ANY cause to follow.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I have absolutely zero belief in AGW, and it angers me greatly when people who do believe claim themselves to be morally superior etc. This is what you're doing...

Along with taking credit for your daughter's possible future accomplishments.

You're showing large amounts of smug superiority and taking credit preemptively for things your daughter may accomplish in the future. Your entire attitude and handling of responses to this thread drip with selfishness and self righteousness without actually DOING ANYTHING YOURSELF.

Personally I'm a conservationist, and cautious in my daily life about what I do and buy... Do you know why I don't start self aggrandizing threads to show my moral superiority?

Because I'm just a guy trying to leave the world a little better than I left it, and nothing about this is special or remarkable. I don't need or want recognition, because what I do is the bare minimum a good human should do.

All that said, as a DIY engineering type I do actively look to find solutions that could reduce the impact and consumption required to live a comfortable and reasonably easy life. When my friends and I achieve success, which we will eventually, we're going to open source our best work...

Will we do our best to parlay kit sales, consulting on implementations, and other things?

ABSOLUTELY

There is no harm in seeking rewards and a decent living from your work, but we never lose sight of why we're doing what we do.

Try doing more yourself, and expecting less recognition for your accomplishments and maybe you will get some respect.

P.s. mother earth news is crap, and lies just as much if not FAR MORE than people who don't believe what you do.

^^^^

This, this, and more of this. I could not have said it better myself.

I completely respect the work you do and yet stay so humble. I think we're all just trying to get by in life and do what we can to make the world better or at least leave it better for the future gens.

Those who deny human induced climate change are simply ignorant or just plain stupid.

The science, the data is overwhelming and there are no legitimate reasons a reasonable person can rationalize our species is not having a significant impact on the climate.

a reply to: 00018GE

No...you just lack an understanding of science.

The climate has changed in the past, therefore the changing climate must be natural is a fool's argument.

However there are many ignorant people like yourself who keep repeating that talking point.

It is embarrassing as that so many (mostly right leaning Americans) just write off climate change, though most who can't grasp the science behind AGO also can't grasp the concept of evolution.....

I have absolutely zero belief in AGW, and it angers me greatly when people who do believe claim themselves to be morally superior etc. This is what you're doing.

There is no question in my mind that AGW exists as the back-radiation from CO2 has been measured by interferometry (Feldman et al 2015; see below). If there is just one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere the theoretical laws of physics demand that it be an absorber of radiant energy emanating from the Earth’s surface on certain specific wavelengths and that it be a re-emitter of that absorbed energy in all directions too, and some of that radiation should be returned to the surface where it should be absorbed and produce some warming, however small, in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics. The question is really about the hypothesised positive and negative feedbacks that amplify or dampen the warming from CO2. These discussions (well, sort of) on ATS about climate change are pretty bad to read. Usually one person keeps calling people a ‘climate-change denier’ (whatever the hell that means) without ever explaining what they are denying, and another person says people are ‘ignorant and stupid’ without providing any sort of explanation. That’s not really an effective way to get people to come around to your way of thinking.

originally posted by: pthena
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.

Does that worldwide data do anything to disprove that carbon cap and trade programs are anything but a new exchange where one group of people profits off of another after stacking the rules in their favor? How does buying/selling carbon credits which still allow you to pollute benefit the environment? Nice try though.

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

Ah, then we are in total agreement that carbon cap and trade schemes are just that, schemes.

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

No problem, I understand, it hurts when you learn that the people who are supposedly out to 'save the planet' are in reality looking to milk other people dry and have no issue scaremongering by employing faulty or fabricated data.

If can actually sit there and type that there has been no issues with the data I have an even better real estate deal for you than the bridge.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ah, then we are in total agreement that carbon cap and trade schemes are just that, schemes.

Cap and trade, yeah, schemes. Cap not so much.

it hurts when you learn that the people who are supposedly out to 'save the planet' are in reality looking to milk other people dry and have no issue scaremongering by employing faulty or fabricated data.

Actually, it sort of hurts that you converse in a belittling way.

It hurts that you assume that I love Gore. All he's doing is profiting from his knowledge of climate change combined with his knowledge that U.S. has chosen a course from which he can profit. As long as Byrd-Hegel is on the books he will continue to profit. I really don't like Gore.

Well it's mostly been said for me already.

It's BS.

Clean up the planet? No problem! I'm all for that.

Save the whales? No brainer.

Charge me more for electricity? You be dreamin'.

originally posted by: pthena
Cap and trade, yeah, schemes. Cap not so much.

There are no viable cap only plans that do not severely impact the developing world.

Actually, it sort of hurts that you converse in a belittling way.

Oh well, now you know how it feels when you get condescended and talked down to by someone who thinks that just because I think carbon credits are a scam I must be some sort of Bush/Republican ass kissing sycophant who wants the planet polluted.

It hurts that you assume that I love Gore. All he's doing is profiting from his knowledge of climate change combined with his knowledge that U.S. has chosen a course from which he can profit. As long as Byrd-Hegel is on the books he will continue to profit. I really don't like Gore.

Gore is the poster jackass for climate change. His fearmongering and use of erroneous data is the exact reason I am highly skeptical of all data. There is too much money to be made by too few people for it all to be accurate.

Do you honestly believe that none of the data has been fudged?

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: network dude
No one can answer that question, and therein lies the problem.

Some have tried though.
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

Yes, there isn't nearly the level of knowledge claimed on this subject. There is a ton we just don't know. And if you are chastised for asking the damn question, we will never learn any more than we know right now.

Until we know how much we are affecting the climate, how in the world will we know how effective we can be at fixing it, or even the right direction.

Why not keep looking at ALL sides and in the interim period, plant trees, stop polluting the rivers and oceans, and find a better fuel source. None of those ideas will hurt the Earth, and we can all agree on the usefulness of projects like that. And all without the ridicule of the pompous arrogant know it all attitude of the AGW police.

originally posted by: jrod
Those who deny human induced climate change are simply ignorant or just plain stupid.

The science, the data is overwhelming and there are no legitimate reasons a reasonable person can rationalize our species is not having a significant impact on the climate.

Delivery sux.

what percentage is man responsible? Your "overwhelming data" should have that figure.

a reply to: roguetechie

There is no harm in seeking rewards and a decent living from your work, but we never lose sight of why we're doing what we do.

Try doing more yourself, and expecting less recognition for your accomplishments and maybe you will get some respect.

P.s. mother earth news is crap, and lies just as much if not FAR MORE than people who don't believe what you do.

Wow. You feel better now?

I haven't talked about what I do to mitigate my own "carbon footprint." I do plenty. I started this thread to ask WHY climate change is denied by some people.

Whatever. I wish you all the best success. Sorry you don't like my tone.

a reply to: network dude

What percentage is man responsible for the current warming? (remember, back it up with facts if you answer)

I don't know exactly what percentage. Didn't claim to. I do know that we are POLLUTING THE AIR, EARTH AND WATER. Those are facts.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There are no viable cap only plans that do not severely impact the developing world.

Quite possibly true.

Oh well, now you know how it feels when you get condescended and talked down to by someone who thinks that just because I think carbon credits are a scam I must be some sort of Bush/Republican ass kissing sycophant who wants the planet polluted.

So I'm taking the heat for someone else. Cool.

Gore is the poster jackass for climate change. His fearmongering and use of erroneous data is the exact reason I am highly skeptical of all data. There is too much money to be made by too few people for it all to be accurate.

That's possible. I wouldn't know. I don't follow the exploits and adventures of Al Gore. Last time I saw him was on South Park

Do you honestly believe that none of the data has been fudged?

I don't typically take absolutist positions.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The same government that lied about; 9/11, WMD's in Iraq, Roswell, Moon landings, foreign policies. . . . . .

Is telling us the truth about climate change.

originally posted by: pthena
I don't typically take absolutist positions.

It was not a very difficult question to answer. Have there been issues with the data, yes or no?

If 'yes' it should be very easy to see from where the skepticism arises.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It was not a very difficult question to answer. Have there been issues with the data, yes or no?

Yes.

Climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration
Influence of industry groups

In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the Bush administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.[3]

The Bush administration implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters," according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine which reviews hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.

"'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick S. Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Dick Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing—while making it look like they are doing something.' . . .
...
Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming