Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, yeah...there's five counter-claims to anthropocentric climate change theory:
Deny that any climate change happens.
Admit that climate change does exist, but deny that humans have any role in causing it.
Admit that climate change exists, that humans have caused it, but claim that it's actually beneficial, or at least not that harmful.
Admit that climate change exists, that humans have caused it, and that it's harmful, but claim that there's nothing that anyone could have ever done about it.
Admit that climate change exists, that it's harmful, that humans have caused it, and that humans could have fixed it, but now it's too late.
Looks like the poll has simply matched numbers to the above five beliefs.
Notice that they use the emotionally-charged, guilt-inducing term "Admit", as if we were admitting or not-admitting to the commission of a crime. Agree or Disagree would be neutral terms.
Well, yeah...there's five counter-claims to anthropocentric climate change theory:
Disagree that any climate change happens.
Agree that climate change does exist, but disagree that humans have any role in causing it.
Agree that climate change exists, that humans have caused it, but claim that it's actually beneficial, or at least not that harmful.
Agree that climate change exists, that humans have caused it, and that it's harmful, but claim that there's nothing that anyone could have ever done about it.
Agree that climate change exists, that it's harmful, that humans have caused it, and that humans could have fixed it, but now it's too late.
Looks like the poll has simply matched numbers to the above five beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piccadilly Lily
Notice that they use the emotionally-charged, guilt-inducing term "Admit", as if we were admitting or not-admitting to the commission of a crime. Agree or Disagree would be neutral terms.
Notice that they use the emotionally-charged, guilt-inducing term "Admit", as if we were admitting or not-admitting to the commission of a crime. Agree or Disagree would be neutral terms.
Also note all the scientific data by climatologist have been either made up from models or proved to be purposefully falsified to get the conclusions they want. Nobody has been around a million years to tell us if there is a 20,000 year cycle going on that we are not aware of.
I find the scientists who have been pushing this are a cult.
They act like many young people do regarding history. People look at their short lived life spans and think we are in the last days of Revelations in the Bible and that everything will happen in the current living generation. Happens every generation.
People have to get over themselves and detach themselves emotionally from science.
They place 75% of the monitoring stations wrong to favor warming temperatures and we KNOW the main scientists involved were caught lying and fabricating results.
This has been snake oil sales, not dependable science.
Hell, Al Gore made a billion on idiots buying his BS.
Notice that they use the emotionally-charged, guilt-inducing term "Admit", as if we were admitting or not-admitting to the commission of a crime. Agree or Disagree would be neutral terms.
You might find this piece interesting, since it posits a quite-plausible root cause for why so many such people liken AGW denial to Holocaust denial so readily (scroll down to the part about Timothy Snyder).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Are you saying that we shouldn't even try to keep the earth habitable for humans?
Well, it would take an awful lot of warming to make Canada and Siberia, which combined constitute a very large part of the Earth's real estate, too hot to be habitable by humans. Iqaluit, for example, would need to warm by 72F to reach the annual average mean temperature of Mecca (obviously "habitable" since millions of people live in that region). The most wacko climate model I've seen shows an 8C warming over present norms by 2150; the likes of Iqualuit are projected to warm by 10C in one 4.6C warming scenario, so if we assume a proportional warming for the 8C scenario that suggests 18C or so of warming for Iqaluit. That happens to be less than half the warming required to bring them up to Mecca's temperatures; in such a scenario, Iqaluit's average annual mean temperature would rise to 47F, which is comparable to Chicago.
So even in the most far-out scenario for global warming that to my knowledge has ever been put out (thus a highly improbable one to say the least), the entirety of the planet's current polar and subpolar lands would retain indisputably habitable climate, with temperatures similar to the current main population centers to boot. This is an enormous amount of habitable real estate for a planet supposedly uninhabitable for humans. Now, such a change in climate would cause adjustments that might be very adverse to the advancement of civilization or to human well-being, but you should know better than to claim that it would make the Earth "uninhabitable for humans".
Are you saying that we shouldn't even try to keep the earth habitable for humans?
This is the problem with 'climate change' alarmists.... everything is an all or nothing proposition. If you have even the smallest quibble with the notion that humans are increasing global temperatures (and what is the correct average global temperature?) then it means you want dirty air, dirty water and perpetual war. There is no rational middle ground with these people. It's a religion to them.
Also note all the scientific data by climatologist have been either made up from models or proved to be purposefully falsified to get the conclusions they want. Nobody has been around a million years to tell us if there is a 20,000 year cycle going on that we are not aware of.
I find the scientists who have been pushing this are a cult.
They act like many young people do regarding history. People look at their short lived life spans and think we are in the last days of Revelations in the Bible and that everything will happen in the current living generation. Happens every generation.
People have to get over themselves and detach themselves emotionally from science.
They place 75% of the monitoring stations wrong to favor warming temperatures and we KNOW the main scientists involved were caught lying and fabricating results.
This has been snake oil sales, not dependable science.
Hell, Al Gore made a billion on idiots buying his BS.
Have you heard of Professor Judith Curry? I listened to an interview with her (Tom Woods show) and it was pretty eye-opening. She talked about how it's basically career suicide to even question the data, the methods used, etc. so nobody does, and how she's seen a lot of intimidation and threats in that field of study. She thinks that the actual number of scientists who agree with man-made climate change is closer to 40%, but many are afraid of losing funding for their university/institution, or that they won't get published anymore, or that their colleagues will get angry at them. They should just be following the scientific method without caring what the result is.
I think there could be an emperor's new clothes aspect to it, where people don't question it because nobody else is questioning it and they don't want to look stupid. That leads to bad science. Plus, the topic is so emotionally charged and political that it's hard to know what's objective and true.
Back in the Olden day - Science was taught to school children.
They learned that there are basically 4 seasons in much of the USA - Spring,Summer,Fall,Winter
It's used be called "Climate Changing".
Students also learned about the Dinosaurs and the Ice Age. "Climate Changed".
Those who were around in the 1970's saw constant News Reports of the Coming Ice Age.
And then Al Gore lost a Presidential Election and had to make himself Relevant by scaring the World about something NEW ...... called "Global Warming" and how "Man" was destroying the Earth and we had only about 10 years until we all burned up.
Oops ...... turns out that didn't happen, BUT on the Up Side -- Al Gore made Millions and Millions of Dollar with his Scary "Global Warming". Had to "change" the name - it was clear to even the Bobble Headed Leftists that there is no "Global Warming".
Presto-Chango ....... We will now call it "Climate Change" and keep that MONEY rolling in and the Bobble-Headed Leftist happy. Now they run Polls asking people - Do you believe there is "Climate Change" ... and people do remember that we have "Changing Climate with the Seasons" and even a few remember those old lessons about Dinosaurs and the Ice Age. Very few as the years go by - the rest of them now get their "Science" education (and I do use that term very loosely) from the New York Times, Think Progress, Mother Jones and the Great and Magnificent Al Gore ........ and all the legions that are making Millions and Millions of Dollars from a False "Science".
Back in the Olden Days - We used to have this very archaic thing called EDUCATION.
It's long Dead and Gone.
70% of people are lemmings who do not think for themselves? Sounds about right. I think it was about 70% believed we were running out of oil and the Earth was cooling back in the 70's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
