Why the Climate Change Hate?

A lot of people want to prove climate change wrong. I can understand that. But one has to admit that is there is some evidence, some scientific fact, that can be argued both ways. It is hard to say that global warming is a complete hoax and that there isn't a chance that we as humans are causing it?

Why don't we wean ourselves off fossil fuels (which ONE day we are going to have to one way or the other) now.

If the anti-climate change people are right, then yes we lost some money, had to adjust a little, but we took away money from those cuddly OPEC nations. It may suck for a while, but I mean we would get through it. I agree there are holes in the theory, but the worst case scenario for what happens if we try and stop CO2 emissions is a depression, which the new Eco-friendly industries like the people making windmills, solar panels, hydrogen fuel cells etc, should help that.

Other hand...if climate change is right, then we have that whole doomsday scenario, and a way worse economic collapse worldwide...

Whether it is right or wrong we won't no for sure until it is too late (if it is true after all) so why not do something, we don't have that much to lose?

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Tenebrous]

reply to post by Tenebrous


If they're right, why would they want to waste resources fixing a problem that doesn't exist? Granted, there would likely be a few benefits, but at the cost of a great deal of inefficiency.

If you want to rid the world of fossil fuel use, for example, state that as your objective and aim the funding towards that end. Otherwise, developing additional technologies to affect non-existent (or natural) 'climate change' serves no one and is largely a waste of time, effort and resources.





[edit on 15-3-2008 by vor78]

Why? Simply put, I do not trust the motives of the leaders of the Global warming hysteria.

If it were a question of "Why don't we find ways to use less fossil fuels?", then, sure, I'm all for that... as long as the fossil fuels are replaced by something else, obviously preferably something less polluting. If it were "Why don't we develop technology to clean up the mess we've made?", hey, I think that's a great idea!

The consequences for the average person from the present movement of Global Warming activists are not a loss of a little money. It's the loss of everything we hold dear. CO2 is produced in the very act of breathing; will this lead to a breathing tax? It seems automobiles are now in the sights of the activists. Does that mean I will have to ride a horse, a bike, or maybe even walk to the nearest store, 15 miles away, for groceries? The use of ethanol (which does not reduce CO2 emissions) is already raising costs for staples such as cereal, bread, milk, and eggs. Will I soon be unable to feed my family?

I am not against a clean environment. I myself own 90 acres of virgin forest, which I maintain in it's glorious unspoiled beauty. I have done so all my life, without any EPA to tell me how to do it. It provides me with beauty, peace, food (hunting/gardening), and a place to go to get away from all the bluster and harassment society seems to be so good at providing. I do not need, nor do I want any politician to tell me I am doing something wrong with it. It's mine. It's my home.

I hope this answers your question.

TheRedneck

do you treuly perceive every contradicting post as a sign of hate? will you go on and accuse AGW dissenters as angry? or scared maybe?..?

i hope not, because if you did, your motivation would suddenly become very clear. to everyone who wants to listen.

Agreed. It's very disingenuous to say "if you disagree, it's only because you
hate the truth."

I would say this arises out of a resistance to change when it is being rammed down your throat.

Global warming activists are just as vehement and proselytising as the religions of yesteryear. I for one get incredibly pissed off when some sanctimonious person thinks they are holier than me just because they drive a prius/ recycle their bottles/ reuse their toilet paper. (Yeah, sorry for that last analogy )

For the record, I think energy diversification is a brilliant idea. If we can get massive amounts of energy from fusion, use hydrogen fuel instead of petrol and generate electricity from the sun instead of burning oil and coal then why not! Burning minerals from the earth is a ridiculously barbaric way of producing energy. It doesnt suit the humans of the 21st century to use the methods used by cavemen to generate power. Bring on helium-3 fusion, solar generation and nuclear power.

Sorry for the word hate used in the title. It is used in my syntax to mean someone giving someone a hard time more than real hate. I was referring to a lot of people outside this forum (the real world) seem to have a desperate need to debunk at any cost. I think there could be many reasons for this and thats fine. IMO there is climate change, and most who look into the issue are hard pressed to disprove that. The only question is whats causing it. I know there is evidence on both sides, but even if its only a 10% chance it is humans causing it, why would we gamble on that.

The economics repercussions of the doom days climate change scenario, which I think may be a little exaggerated, but close to what could happen, seem a lot more severe than the repercussions and costs of not doing anything. This thread actually isn't supposed to take a side, but to say to both sides that we should stop looking at this as some kind of right or wrong thing. If we can prove global warming isn't from us, good. But even if there is still a small chance it COULD be us, we wouldn't be that bad off in the long wrong, although it may hurt us personally in the short run. That comes off a little greedy.

We have different elements at work when discussing the differences between the "global warming" and "clean living" camps.

-the global warming ardents are purveyors of the message that we, mere humans, are single-handedly altering the climate make-up of the Earth and it's directly proportional to our burning of carbon fuels. No natural ingredients. No effect upon us by our Sun or the Solar System. None.

Yet, somehow, in one year (2007) we have seen a near complete erasure of all higher temps taken over the last 25 years......all while seemingly pumping out more carbon gases and using more oil than ever before.

Huh?


I like clean air and water. I have to breath and drink the stuff, so, call me a self-preservationist. BUT, when we have elements among us who consider our very existence, our use of technology, and our economic systems as "evil" and totally and directly responsible for ANY and ALL weather related events............I have to call BS!


The "hate" you mention is simply the animos directed toward rationale people over the last few decades being rightly directed right back at the environmental radicals over that time accusing any and all who disagreed with them of nothing short of Armageddeon.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I would say this arises out of a resistance to change when it is being rammed down your throat.

it seems i'll have to assemble some change in my favour and club somone else with it just to see how it feels... i hope you're aware that this is simplya a variant of the 'you're only scared' line of thinking.

10 years ago, i did not think much about AGW, therefore considered it legit (even though i've always found it suspicious how a gaseous absorption spectrum consisting of discrete frequencies only could strongly influence planetary climate) and basically agreed that resource consumption should be reduced to minimize environmental impact - i still do, btw, but AGW is a wholly different affair.

when confronted with conflicting evidence you have the option to either ignore it ("Exxon paid them") or weigh it against the bulk of data. it turns out that many, many people are neither willing to adress anomalies in their own data (near the end of the linked post on the bottom) nor are they inclined to even consider different views. this forum is rife with such types and their only redeeming quality is persistence, afaics.

the true goals become obvious when the alarmists' favorite tactic, namely a "call for action" is yet again used to corall the unsuspecting into embracing inconsistent data - f-ex. Greenland inhabitated by Vikings 1000AD, on one hand, Greenland Glaciers subject to unprecedented warming, since millions of years, on the other. (the dreaded 'Let's save the Earth' nonsense. most people couldn't fight their way out of the proverbial paperback, let alone save anyone). invariably, it's 'green' technologies (see www.abovetopsecret.com...) to the rescue and when they fail, as they often do, it's austerity. that's loss of options and loss of quality of life, for the benefit of those WITH options, of course.

the true goal is deindustrialisation, out of purely romantic delusions, based on the assumption that all the injustice of the world is tied to the current model of society and production. in truth, it's obvioulsy, the other way around, namely, the current model was built around these fake *ideals* of vertical, unconditional power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. the industry is merely reflecting that, much like government is. iow, willful sabotage will only change the lot of the powerless, ie. ours, for the worse, but tell that to some starry eyed world saver


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see the whole man-made climate change issue as a huge scam and just another way to fleece the population.

Sure, it would be great to move away from fossil fuels but right now there is no cost effective replacement available to us. What the government in the UK has done (which is their approach to everything) is to increase taxation on fuel, carbon emissions and, if they could, they'd tax us for farting too.

Cleaner technology for cars is becoming available but it's still out of the reach of the average motorist due to prohibitive pricing. The oil companies too are complicit in this scam and over the years have actively worked to suppress alternatives in favour of their black gold. It's not just fuel, it's all the oil based products we use day in / day out that other big industries make Billions of £'s from.
I was reading a piece at the weekend hinting that carbon credits will likely become the next big investment on the stock markets... absolutely incredible



[edit on 17-3-2008 by Britguy]

I have generally noted that most climate-change nay-sayers are right-wing. They identify the effort to halt climate-change with the 'global liberal elite'. Quite a lot of them also like their big cars and guns.

Exactly as you said in your beginning post, there is a ton of evidence...that can be taken either way. What sways the arrow towards "bunk" for me is Mr. Gore. This guy's presence in the entire argument is a conflict of interest. I'm sorry, but I cannot take his word on the subject when he stands to make billions selling carbon offsets should his ideas take hold.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I would say this arises out of a resistance to change when it is being rammed down your throat.

it seems i'll have to assemble some change in my favour and club somone else with it just to see how it feels... i hope you're aware that this is simplya a variant of the 'you're only scared' line of thinking.

10 years ago, i did not think much about AGW, therefore considered it legit (even though i've always found it suspicious how a gaseous absorption spectrum consisting of discrete frequencies only could strongly influence planetary climate) and basically agreed that resource consumption should be reduced to minimize environmental impact - i still do, btw, but AGW is a wholly different affair.

when confronted with conflicting evidence you have the option to either ignore it ("Exxon paid them") or weigh it against the bulk of data. it turns out that many, many people are neither willing to adress anomalies in their own data (near the end of the linked post on the bottom) nor are they inclined to even consider different views. this forum is rife with such types and their only redeeming quality is persistence, afaics.

the true goals become obvious when the alarmists' favorite tactic, namely a "call for action" is yet again used to corall the unsuspecting into embracing inconsistent data - f-ex. Greenland inhabitated by Vikings 1000AD, on one hand, Greenland Glaciers subject to unprecedented warming, since millions of years, on the other. (the dreaded 'Let's save the Earth' nonsense. most people couldn't fight their way out of the proverbial paperback, let alone save anyone). invariably, it's 'green' technologies (see www.abovetopsecret.com...) to the rescue and when they fail, as they often do, it's austerity. that's loss of options and loss of quality of life, for the benefit of those WITH options, of course.

the true goal is deindustrialisation, out of purely romantic delusions, based on the assumption that all the injustice of the world is tied to the current model of society and production. in truth, it's obvioulsy, the other way around, namely, the current model was built around these fake *ideals* of vertical, unconditional power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. the industry is merely reflecting that, much like government is. iow, willful sabotage will only change the lot of the powerless, ie. ours, for the worse, but tell that to some starry eyed world saver

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ah, but you fail to see another group of people (myself included) who believe:

1. Global warming is a real and present danger to this world

2. It will lead to a rise in sea levels and result in consequences which we have no idea of at this stage. Even a single degree change would spell doom for aquatic lifeforms.

but most importantly,

3. There is nothing that we can do to change this from occuring. As long as other nations exist, they are free to keep polluting and releasing CO2 into the environment. Rather than using measures which destroy our country economically, we should shift our focus to adapting to a scenario where global warming has already occured. The world should technically, heal itself after the effects of global warming have wiped out a percentage of the population of the earth.

The majority of the world's scientists accepted Global Warming as fact before Gore got involved. So why would Gore's involvement change your opinion?

What type of car do you and/or your parents drive. Do you own or want to own a gun? Who do you vote for or would vote for if you are not of age?

[edit on 17-3-2008 by rizla]

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

3. There is nothing that we can do to change this from occuring. As long as other nations exist, they are free to keep polluting and releasing CO2 into the environment. Rather than using measures which destroy our country economically, we should shift our focus to adapting to a scenario where global warming has already occured. The world should technically, heal itself after the effects of global warming have wiped out a percentage of the population of the earth.

We lost all hope of effecting the policies of China/India when Bush killed Kyoto.

reply to post by rizla


How can you say majority? Did anyone ever poll the paleontologists, historians, etc.?

Why would their opinion matter? Or are you going to get your paleontologists to work on your covert nuclear program too...?

When that is said it refers to scientists in the weather field, meteorologists and the like, although I'm sure botanists are consulted for their input on why certain plants are dying off and the like. Personally I wouldn't want them to have some random scientists opinion if hes not in a position to contribute anything, or is in a field in which he doesn't have a higher degree of climate and weather knowledge that the average guy.

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by rizla

 

How can you say majority? Did anyone ever poll the paleontologists, historians, etc.?

Here we go, hair-splitting and denying the obvious while the north pole melts. I have better things to do.

reply to post by rizla


It's melting, but it's not my fault.

Originally posted by rizla

What type of car do you and/or your parents drive. Do you own or want to own a gun? Who do you vote for or would vote for if you are not of age?

[edit on 17-3-2008 by rizla]

Exactly why does gun ownership matter in this debate? This is twice now that you've mentioned it.

Let me guess. Anyone that doesn't buy into global warming is just a beer-swilling, gun-totin', truck-drivin', buck-toothed, Bible-thumpin', Bush-votin' redneck idiot?

I apologize if you're going somewhere with this besides stereotyping, but it appears that indeed, you're just stereotyping.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by vor78]