Can AGW deniers & Peak Oil deniers rightly call themselves survivalists? (Al Gore, global warming)

[ca_north]

I'm referring to those who think paranoia, guns, ammo & bunkers are more important for survival than understanding long-term threats based on scientific evidence. A lot of "survivalists" seem far more interested in collecting trick survival gear than wanting to prevent the need for its use.

Fair observation? Off topic?

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by ca_north

I'm referring to those who think paranoia, guns, ammo & bunkers are more important for survival than understanding long-term threats based on scientific evidence. A lot of "survivalists" seem far more interested in collecting trick survival gear than wanting to prevent the need for its use.

Fair observation? Off topic?

Despite your link, there is not "scientific consensus" on the topic of global warming. In the 1970s scientists were screaming "global cooling." Then Al Gore, fresh off of his invention of the internet, invented Global Warming. Now scientists just call it climate change so they are covered either way. And they black wall those who do not conform.

Here's an interesting read if you are interested:
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton

Your doomsday scenario is more likely to be ushered in because of years of failed fiscal policy by both leading parties in Washington. Understanding long-term threats IS important to preparing. Understanding WHAT the long-term threats are is a good place to begin.

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Mod Note: while couched in "survivalist" wording, this is more accurately a political/controversial debate.
i.e. Which is more effective -- preparing for an event or attempting to prevent the event, assuming said event is inevitable or valid or preventable?

[ChrisC]

Can those who believe in statistics that were compiled from PROVEN fabricated data be considered intelligent enough to ask questions?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ca_north

Can AGW deniers & Peak Oil deniers rightly call themselves survivalists?

Fair observation?

No, it isn't fair. Your use of the label "deniers" makes that obvious.

Global warming is a non-event. Even if it was real, it is wholly positive, unless you have something against a beautiful lush green Earth. You focus solely on one potentially negative possibility, and that is sea level rise, which so far has been non-existent.

You are completely ignorant on the subject matter of global warming. Had you been following it as long as others have, then you'd know that the only thing they have done for 20 years now is retract every claim they have ever made.

You can start by educating yourself on claims of sea level rise. First it was 30 meters, then 10-12 meters, then 3 meters, then 1 meter, then centimeters. All they've done is retract their hysterical doom-n-gloom only to replace it with more hysterical doom-n-gloom, then Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

If global warming was real, and based on science, there there are two things we should be able to do:

1] Make Accurate Predictions: total fail there; and

2] Others should be able to duplicate their work -- and no one can.

The only thing funnier than global warming is "cold fusion."

One reason weather forecasters fail so much is because they stopped using the real climate mode and adopted the failed global warming model.

You can read the Cleveland Plain Dealer for details on that.

As for Peak Oil (snicker), they've been screaming that for 40 years.....so how much longer will they continue to scream?

Don't you find it odd that none of the peal oil idiots consider the impact of economics? Well, when you learn that, you'll see that peak oil is an oxymoron.

And what does that have to do with survivalists?

Nothing. Global warming, even if it would be real, will not produce an Apocalypse, and neither will peak oil, so why worry about it?

And don't confuse the mentally ill with true survivalists. I spent less than $100 "prepping" on survival gear, and I'll out-live everyone.

Surviving...

Mircea

[Submariner]

This planet's climate has been changing since long before man was here to even record the changes.

This planet has seen many ice ages [ie, 1350AD to 1850AD] and many hot ages [ie, 950AD to 1250AD].

The continents are in constant motion skirting about the surface of the planet, from Pangaea to the mess we see today.

And the planet's orbit has been under going continuous changes.

I certainly do not 'deny' any of this.

[FrankMiller]

I think a survivalist is someone with a focus on surviving independently without society, so I don't think it has anything to do with their opinion of society. You can be a survivalist who distrusts bourgeois society, or a survivalist who is convinced aliens have invaded and are tracking you through the internet; the motivation isn't disqualifying.


Whether someone who collects survival "toys" without intent to use is a real survivalist, I'm not sure; I guess that might be a matter of degrees.

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Can those who believe in statistics that were compiled from PROVEN fabricated data be considered intelligent enough to ask questions?

I don't think the OP is an AGW denier, I think they believe the myriad obvious real data proving that climate change is real.

[rstevens62]

Seems to me, some people are under the impression oil is an unlimited resource!


In theory we hit peak oil back in the 1970s, of course I can understand why NO ONE talks about this topic, (cause too much panic)


One thing is for certain, they cannot keep sucking oil from the planet day after day in the amounts we are used to...eventually it runs dry and we better have a replacement ready to go when that happens.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ca_north

I'm referring to those who think paranoia, guns, ammo & bunkers are more important for survival than understanding long-term threats based on scientific evidence. A lot of "survivalists" seem far more interested in collecting trick survival gear than wanting to prevent the need for its use.

Fair observation? Off topic?

I'm not a "survivalist" but your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.

Survivalists, by definition, are driven by their own survival. Long term threats to humanity at large aren't part of the equation.

Seriously, that was pretty silly. Did you think about it before posting?