Climate Change Deniers, What is your Motivation?

$$$

How do you make money personally though?

My goal is human flourishing. Fossil fuels are far superior to all other energy sources at meeting the demands of industrial civilization.

Bigoil wrote:

How do you make money personally though?

Many people listen to political blow-hards, who receive very large lobbied donations contend "energy prices will plummet if all environmental standards are repealed." The masses are either too lazy or dumb to research it themselves and see that such measures only go straight to energy companies profits without any change to the consumer.

Pizza boy wrote:

My goal is human flourishing. Fossil fuels are far superior to all other energy sources at meeting the demands of industrial civilization.

Superior how - because they're more energy-dense? Why does that make them superior? Energy is energy regardless where it comes from.

I agree with the op. Don't understand the resistance, at all. Unless it's politically motivated.

Science not religion.

In not other science is it possible to fabricate data without terminating your career. Climate science it's expected of you to alter your data to match a predetermined conclusion.

The fact that climate scientists are acting like a cult by allowing the false "97%" narrative to be pushed is an indictment of their cult.

My motivation is simple: whenever fuktards argue one way, I take the opposing view automatically. Call it mental laziness if you will. Sometimes I'm wrong but mostly I end up right. So I keep doing it.

My reasoning is clear cut. I like being obese, breathing oil fumes and smoke, and generally being contrary to anything that's intelligent.

Why are you calling people climate change deniers. I am not calling you a liberal.

Climate change is a myth, like the female orgasm.

Weered science wrote:

In no other science is it possible to fabricate data without terminating your career. Climate science it's expected of you to alter your data to match a predetermined conclusion.

The fact that climate scientists are acting like a cult by allowing the false "97%" narrative to be pushed is an indictment of their cult.

These three sentences sum up the very reason that there is so much resistance to what the Climate science crowd is putting out there. They have not let the data speak for itself. Instead they have quantified, adjusted, taken data in different ways, withheld data, ignored data, and or falsified data. I didn't make that up. Research it. They have been caught doing it, and it has been published that they have ignored or attacked the people calling them out. When you put that together with the human propensity to need real, verifiable, motivation to change, well, you can see why there is skepticism at best, and resistance at worst.

namesnotnames wrote:

I often wonder why people who deny Climate Change are so vocal and adamantly against it. Even if it is not real, all the science is wrong, and the rest of the world is wrong. What is the problem with reducing carbon emission, creating less pollution, and using new/different sources of energy to power our lives?

Good science leads to good policies and is one of the greatest forces for improving the condition and life expectancy of people all over the world.

Bad science leads to bad policies which leads to lower standards of living which can actually kill huge numbers of people.

Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962, where she claimed to have proved that DDT was killing off all the birds. It wasn't true, but in 1972 DDT was banned anyway... effectively worldwide.

In 2006 the World Health Organization estimated that 1 million people per year died from malaria because of the DDT ban. Most of those who died were children of color in poor countries. The ban was partially lifted, quietly. They are claiming that the DDT ban killed over 34 million people.

So what harm can bad climate science do? It can kill more people than Hitler.

We need to be very careful about who we listen to when it comes to "science".

I just hope the next sinkhole to open near Maro Lago is under the club this time.

Whether or not related to Climate Change, it will show a glimpse of what's coming, no matter how much McConnell throws a temper tantrum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/22/sinkhole-forms-in-front-of-mar-a-lago-metaphors-pour-in/?utm_term=.bbb34d00a2ff

namesnotnames wrote:

I often wonder why people who deny Climate Change are so vocal and adamantly against it. Even if it is not real, all the science is wrong, and the rest of the world is wrong. What is the problem with reducing carbon emission, creating less pollution, and using new/different sources of energy to power our lives?

You seem to be a bit confused.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a natural constituent component of the atmosphere, like water vapor and nitrogen and oxygen.

In fact, Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is absolutely necessary for plants and trees to grow - the more CO2, the more we are able to grow food.

As for ‘climate change deniers’

Try this - 2000 of them!

namesnotnames wrote:

What is the problem with reducing carbon emission, creating less pollution, and using new/different sources of energy to power our lives?

These are three fair questions. Here's my answers.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. In fact, plant life prospers under increased CO2 levels and food crops become more productive. Reducing CO2 on a global scale is fraught with many problems. It's very expensive and produces little or no meaningful change in future climate. That's assuming that it does in fact affect the climate, which is not proven. It also requires sovereign nations to act outside their own best interests based on biased data and questionable computer models.

Unreliable surface station temperature data: In addition to data being manipulated and stations created out of thin air, the raw data itself is suspect. A survey of official temperature surface stations found that 83% did not meet compliance standards. Some were too close to heat sources, such as parking lots, buildings, air conditioner units, highways, or walls, all which create artificial heat zones. Some were painted the wrong color, which led to greater heat absorption and higher temperatures. When only stations that met reliability standards were averaged, the temperature increase was less than half that reported when all noncompliant stations were included.

It's massive hubris to believe that we can dictate the future CO2 emissions of other sovereign nations. Conservation of fossil fuels is not the answer. Carbon credits are a joke. People are starving and dying in third world nations NOW because of lack of energy. Coal, oil, trees, camel dung... they are going to burn whatever is available to produce energy to heat their huts and cook their food. To survive and prosper, these people need more energy, not less.

Yes, we should be researching alternative energies, but we shouldn't be building operational wind and solar facilities. They are too primitive, too inefficient, too expensive, and too dangerous to the environment. The current generation of these technologies will be dinosaurs in 30 years.

My belief is that it is far better to focus on known, existing problems (dysentery, malaria, measles, better water supplies, air pollution) than to focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, we should also continue research to find a renewable, inexpensive source of alternative energy.

Let me add to my previous post by pointing out the hypocrisy of the leaders of the climate change movement.

Al Gore was outed in 2007 for having a gas and electric bill of $30,000/year for his Nashville home. THIRTY. THOUSAND. DOLLARS!!!!

Later articles tried to tone this down by excluding the heated swimming pool. Never mind that Gore produced more CO2 heating his pool than our family did with our entire house.

Source:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

To add to Fisky's comment:

What does the public know about the "97%" cabal of scientists promoting this? What is their motive??

I, for one, would like an in-depth look at their lifestyle -- every one of them -- housing structure and size, utility usage, transportation mode, food choices, consumer purchasing choices, area where they live, etc.

Are they practicing what they preach????

As for their servitude to their respective employers, who butters their bread?

Not denying climate change. Just in need of more information to make rational decisions. Not interested in Manson family devotion

I never stopped using the DDT.

Yep that's the party line, but they've (generally non-scientists themselves, or heavily bought scientists like the tobacco-cancer deniers) taken things out of context or misinterpreted data and then have used that as fodder for doubt. And around and around we go. In the end, the data will likely demonstrate that climate changes is being caused by anthropogenic forcers (GHGs and deforestation/development/desertification), but even in 50 or 100 years when the evidence may well be incontrovertible their hell spawn will still be denying and confusing the issue with noise.