Does anyone actually believe climate change is fake???

NotPC wrote:

I'm sure the climate changes a lot, we have periods of ice age and then warmer temps, then cooler. I don't believe we have anything to do with it.

I'm against pollution, I'm for conservation of natural resources and places and animals. I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change".

That is the most logical answer to this entire argument right here.

The real question is how many have read the Paris climate accord and actually understand it? To me it looks like a $100 Billion a year penalty on developed countries and a boon for LDCs (least developed countries). All it would do is spark economic growth in developing nations, which would probably exacerbate the climate change problem. Additionally, given that many of the LDCs have unstable governments, what is to stop LDCs from using Paris Accord money on nuclear plants that could be used to enrich uranium into nuclear weapons (North Korea is a signer, and would receive funds under the agreement). The cap and trade program in the EU is rife with unintended consequences (wiping out forests in developing nations and replacing them with Eucalyptus trees, etc.), so don't act like the Paris Accord is some holy grail.

fitz wrote:

NotPC wrote:

I'm sure the climate changes a lot, we have periods of ice age and then warmer temps, then cooler. I don't believe we have anything to do with it.

I'm against pollution, I'm for conservation of natural resources and places and animals. I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change".

That is the most logical answer to this entire argument right here.

No.

"I don't believe we have anything to do with it" may accurately reflect the poster's belief. Given that the belief is contradicted by the body of evidence suggests logic doesn't have much to do with it.

fitz wrote:

NotPC wrote:

I'm sure the climate changes a lot, we have periods of ice age and then warmer temps, then cooler. I don't believe we have anything to do with it.

I'm against pollution, I'm for conservation of natural resources and places and animals. I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change".

That is the most logical answer to this entire argument right here.

I appreciate that you are for conservation and against pollution (I think this is potentially more important), but your point that we have periods of warming and cooling is only correct to an extent. We do experience these, but in our current course is a bit different. In our atmosphere, the bottom two layers are displaying rises in temperature which are the two layers which contain greenhouse gases. The outer layer is remaining unchanged. This indicates that it is not the sun, but instead an effect caused by humans.

If you are against the 'wealth redistribution scheme' (HA!) of climate change, then would be okay with participating in other activities that would lower pollution and help out our animals? This is how we help out climate change... I think that my use of the word climate change was a poor choice because I see that it immediately sets people off. Our planet is expiriencing issues and will experience far worse ones in the future if we don't act soon.

There are also numerous posts about CO2. To educate the public a little bit more, methane is actually somewhere around 20 times more dangerous as a greenhouse gas. So controlling our cows is actually a bigger issue for some reasons than our use of machinery with CO2 emissions.

Also: the person on the first page who called me Lib as a poor insult: Not really liberal. I also wan't alive in the 1970s so there is no need to accuse me of changing my stance from global warming to climate change.

joedirt wrote:

The real question is how many have read the Paris climate accord and actually understand it? To me it looks like a $100 Billion a year penalty on developed countries and a boon for LDCs (least developed countries). All it would do is spark economic growth in developing nations, which would probably exacerbate the climate change problem. Additionally, given that many of the LDCs have unstable governments, what is to stop LDCs from using Paris Accord money on nuclear plants that could be used to enrich uranium into nuclear weapons (North Korea is a signer, and would receive funds under the agreement). The cap and trade program in the EU is rife with unintended consequences (wiping out forests in developing nations and replacing them with Eucalyptus trees, etc.), so don't act like the Paris Accord is some holy grail.

The Paris Accord (or any policy response) is independent from the scientific assertion "climate change is fake".

What you've done is illustrate the likely the most common basis for most climate change denial. That is, one's objections to the presumed policy implications of accepting climate science lead to rejection of the science on any convenient premise. The reason few broadly accept the results of climate science and argue against current policy is that variations of "climate science is unreliable because . . ." are morally a lot more comfortable than recognizing one doesn't really care much about consequences that are mostly transferred to others.

Minor point, but the bottom layer of the atmosphere (troposphere) is warming and the upper layers of the atmosphere are cooling (stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere) are cooling over recent decades. This is, as you indicate, consistent with a greenhouse gas theory and inconsistent with solar or orbital effects.

While it is true that methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas, relative to CO2 there is considerably less being emitted and it is less persistent so CO2 is understood to be the biggest contribution to global warming. That's not to say that methane emissions are insignificant, they aren't.

If climate change really worried people "Beano" stock would have a public offering.

I don't deny climate change exists. All I am saying is Obama tried like heck to legislate it away, and any progress he made was more than offset by the rapid economic growth in SE Asia and India, triggered in part by our own climate legislations. Simply giving money to developing nations as outlined in the Paris accords will not save the climate, in all reality it will probably spur economic and population growth in those nations leading to greater energy use (both renewable and non-renewable). The money being funneled into LDCs would be better spent in developed countries. If instead you want to mandate that these countries spend 1% of their GDP on combatting climate change in their own countries, that would be more effective then transferring wealth to other countries where it will simply spur growth in other countries, just as we have seen in the past decade, where GHG emissions have declined in the US, but skyrocketed in SE Asia and India, where the regulations are less.

fitz wrote:

NotPC wrote:

I'm sure the climate changes a lot, we have periods of ice age and then warmer temps, then cooler. I don't believe we have anything to do with it.

I'm against pollution, I'm for conservation of natural resources and places and animals. I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change".

That is the most logical answer to this entire argument right here.

Yes.

My favorite..."I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change."

I'm going to use that one.

fromtheheart wrote:

If climate change really worried people "Beano" stock would have a public offering.

No, if climate change really worried people, real estate demand in Florida would be going down, not up.

When you have policies that don't do anything for the climate and cost the USA a lot in terms of money and job growth (Paris Accord), then you need better policies. That's not the "deniers'" fault.

joedirt wrote:

If instead you want to mandate that these countries spend 1% of their GDP on combatting climate change in their own countries, that would be more effective then transferring wealth to other countries where it will simply spur growth in other countries, just as we have seen in the past decade, where GHG emissions have declined in the US, but skyrocketed in SE Asia and India, where the regulations are less.

1% of US GDP is roughly half of the annual Federal budget. It is apparent that you are indeed committed to fighting climate change, but I'm not sure that's realistic.

Since we're now discussing the Paris Agreement, it might be informative to see what Bjorn Lomborg has to say about it in what he says is a peer reviewed article. Let me hasten to point out that Lomborg believes that climate change is manmade, but the proposed solutions are a very poor use of resources.

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

fitz wrote:

NotPC wrote:

I'm sure the climate changes a lot, we have periods of ice age and then warmer temps, then cooler. I don't believe we have anything to do with it.

I'm against pollution, I'm for conservation of natural resources and places and animals. I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change".

That is the most logical answer to this entire argument right here.

+2

Yah

There are people blaming the Koch Brothers for the rising oceans. Sure.

Citizen Runner wrote:

1% of US GDP is roughly half of the annual Federal budget. It is apparent that you are indeed committed to fighting climate change, but I'm not sure that's realistic.

1% of GDP = 5% of government budget.

FreddieTheFreeloader wrote:

fitz wrote:

That is the most logical answer to this entire argument right here.

+2

Yah

There are people blaming the Koch Brothers for the rising oceans. Sure.

I don't trust anyone who pays people to make claims and say things which would support their company. And this extends beyond climate change. If Frito Lay started paying people to advocate for their products by claiming that the obesity epidemic is not related to eating their unhealthy products, would you believe it?

curioustoknow wrote:

I don't trust anyone who pays people to make claims and say things which would support their company. And this extends beyond climate change. If Frito Lay started paying people to advocate for their products by claiming that the obesity epidemic is not related to eating their unhealthy products, would you believe it?

Great point. That's why we don't trust Al Gore's nutty movies, since he makes millions selling "carbon credits."

Discouraged wrote:

Damn, runners are definitely in the bottom half of the intelligence Bell curve

Adhominem attack

Ha ha

Hit me harder

But address the Socialism, Communism and Geo-Political issues

Tell me that “India promises to be good and I trust India”

Argue that China will “love the Environment”

Say something

Otherwise, just try to learn debate and grow up

Limousine Liberals wrote:

curioustoknow wrote:

I don't trust anyone who pays people to make claims and say things which would support their company. And this extends beyond climate change. If Frito Lay started paying people to advocate for their products by claiming that the obesity epidemic is not related to eating their unhealthy products, would you believe it?

Great point. That's why we don't trust Al Gore's nutty movies, since he makes millions selling "carbon credits."

Fair Point. I have never actually seen one of his movies, however, so I can't really speak to that. Is there a reason you don't trust his Al Gore but you do trust the Koch Brothers? I would think the Koch Brothers have more to gain from their side, and also the people have more to lose.