Climate Change Deniers, What is your Motivation?

There is a huge # of jobs and a huge amount of money to be made through green energy, far surpassing coal and oil in the # of jobs.

Let's play 'spot the guy that doesn't understand academia'

I WON

There was an ice age, and others periods of crazy temperatures, so I'm not sold on how much man is actually affecting the planet vs. what is naturally occurring.

Your Donald Trump was very smart pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

It has been calculation by sticking to its provisions, it will have cost we consumers in Britain, over £300 billion in the next 15 years, apart from adding to another £100 billion to pay ‘emerging countries’ to go green.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Yeah, all these bald eagles, peregrines and other raptors making YUGE comebacks has nothing to do with the DDT ban. LOL

I guess the generalization of the OP's question is; why are some (like the disco kid) so invested in denying reality in general?

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?

I like flying in planes, riding in cars, and using manufactured goods. Those things require CO2 emissions, which is not a pollutant and won't cause an apocalypse. Don't jam your religion down our throats, thanks.

What's the carbon footprint of a "refugee" coming to America or Europe?

somebloke wrote:

Where is the true data set? wrote:

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.

Let's play 'spot the guy that doesn't understand academia'

I WON

Let's play 'spot the guy who calls other people stoopid, but who is in fact, the dense one"

I WON!

p.s. It's not in the realm of academia if you just make it up, unless you want to grant academia status to the creative writers of this world.

temperatures rising wrote:

the science of carbon dioxide acting as a "greenhouse gas," that is warming the atmosphere, has been well-established, fully accepted science since the 1800s.

This is a true statement, but it is misleading. The majority of predicted warming is not due to this greenhouse effect, but due to positive forcing that multiplies these effects many times.

It has not been conclusively proven that positive forcing will be as great as climate alarmists predict. In fact, the observed data indicates that something is mitigating the effects of increasing CO2 because the climate has not warmed appreciably in the past 18+ years, yet CO2 levels continue to climb steadily.

To save trillions of dollars and avoid the collapse of our economy and living standards.

Disco is a laughable clueless parrot of RW think tanks. These organizations hire ideological non-scientists to write reports that cast doubt on scientists and discredit science. They are good at rhetoric, but not so great at following facts and evidence.

Here's something that Carson said in Silent Spring:

“It is not my contention,” Carson wrote in Silent Spring, “that chemical insecticides must never be used. I do contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm. We have subjected enormous numbers of people to contact with these poisons, without their consent and often without their knowledge.”

fisky wrote:

temperatures rising wrote:

the science of carbon dioxide acting as a "greenhouse gas," that is warming the atmosphere, has been well-established, fully accepted science since the 1800s.

This is a true statement, but it is misleading. The majority of predicted warming is not due to this greenhouse effect, but due to positive forcing that multiplies these effects many times.

It has not been conclusively proven that positive forcing will be as great as climate alarmists predict. In fact, the observed data indicates that something is mitigating the effects of increasing CO2 because the climate has not warmed appreciably in the past 18+ years, yet CO2 levels continue to climb steadily.

The "positive forcing" is a runaway effect that is very rare in nature. You can find it in nuclear explosions but that's a simple particle system. Complex systems like climate or ecological systems are dead stable. A small input will always lead to small changes as there are lots of counteracting forces. That's the very definition of a complex system.

The climate change theories that are promoted by the IPPC simply goes against the basic principles of complex systems theory.

The onus is on you to make them believe. Thus far, the circus of data promoting anthropogenic climate change is underwhelming, and as presented by major media outlets, is harmful to the cause.

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?

Is this a serious question?

Look, a lot of people hate the notion of climate change for about the same reason that a lot hated BHO (I didn't vote for him either, but I didn't hate him *personally*): it means a change. When people feel like they're just getting by anyway, the prospect of a change can be enormously threatening.

Though of course some people were against BHO for racial reasons (which I found kind of funny, giving that he's a majority-white person--just as this is a majority-white country), I believe that most of the people who hated him were NOT directly motivated by racism. Rather, they hated the idea of change--which he, as a man of color, literally embodied.

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?

I'm all for reducing pollution. But the entire movement is an exaggeration. In the space of 4 days I went from running in 24°c one day to running in 8°c weather. Yet the evidence suggests that current temperatures are about 1°c warmer than 100 years ago (which is well below the 2,000 year average). If I can adapt to 16 x this variation, humanity will be just fine.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

If I can adapt to 16 x this variation, humanity will be just fine.

Yeah!

Well, except for the people who live in some coastal cities...cities that are, right now, being progressively inundated. The people in, say, Miami Beach might not be able to adapt very well to living in water. Some of them, anyway.

stjsjtr wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

If I can adapt to 16 x this variation, humanity will be just fine.

Yeah!

Well, except for the people who live in some coastal cities...cities that are, right now, being progressively inundated. The people in, say, Miami Beach might not be able to adapt very well to living in water. Some of them, anyway.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

Miami's problem is they are sinking. The sea has risen only 6 inches since Miami was founded in 1896, but they would rather blame your SUV than the fact that they built on a freaking swamp!

HardLoper wrote:

stjsjtr wrote:

Yeah!

Well, except for the people who live in some coastal cities...cities that are, right now, being progressively inundated. The people in, say, Miami Beach might not be able to adapt very well to living in water. Some of them, anyway.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

Miami's problem is they are sinking. The sea has risen only 6 inches since Miami was founded in 1896, but they would rather blame your SUV than the fact that they built on a freaking swamp!

This is 100% correct, when the UN has all these small poor Pacific Islands inhabitants in NY to speak sob-stories about sea levels rising and washing away their islands. They always fail to inform everyone watching on that the atolls they are living on are actually sinking. Most of these atolls are only a couple of thousand years old and aren't meant for human inhabitants.

Ill share my personal experience at the moment with you all and the original reason for me asking the question. I live in a developing island nation at the moment (I have for the past 2 years), the city I live in is rather large, over populated, and very dirty. I wake up almost every morning to a blanket of haze caused mostly by factory emissions, car emissions, motorcycle emissions, burning of trash, etc.

I have rarely been able to run outside because of the amount of pollution. When we first arrived here I was running outside, I would return home and have black snot and mucus for a few hours afterwards. I have an air purifier in my home that is almost constantly displaying poor air quality. While walking outside, many wear mask.

What I don't understand is why, when one has nothing to gain, they can be against a transition from fossil fuels. We have a home in the U.S. still which has 6 (or 8, I cant remember) solar panels, I have paid next to nothing or received a credit from the electric company on every utility bill since we installed them. The system, granted I installed it myself, paid itself off in 2 years.

I mention these things because, to me, they coincide with the climate change argument. What is believed to cause climate change, or part of it, are the things that I described above. What is believed to contribute to stopping climate change has been very beneficial to me, and is saving me about $200 a month at this point.

Even if climate change is a hoax, the benefits we can get from reducing reliance on fossil fuels seem to be pretty great. That is all...