What's new
By:
Filters

Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

H

HighlandHomie

Well-Known Member
Do you take that stance for purely political purposes? Or are you proficient in the sciences and have studied it so much that you've come to your own conclusion?

I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I am in no way close to being educated enough on the subject to speak on it - I just trust the overwhelming and staggering amount of scientists world-wide who have asserted humans have contributed vastly to the decay of the environment in many places.

I am just curious why anyone would dismiss this topic as irrelevant/argue against changing the way we live to help reduce the damage we're doing.
 
the ozone layer is slowly but surely closing up. CFC had a far more tangible effect than carbon. so the world had to act.

now why is there a dispute about carbon en climate change/global warming.
because science is not absolute. scientist cant seem to agree on global warming. thats why its renamed climate chane.

obama wants to put the environment in hands of EPA. thats wrong and BAD.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
I'm pretty sure all cops deny cop involvement in climate change/global warming.
Click to expand...

That is hilarious. Really good stuff. You ever think of doing comedy? Snark and making light of serious and sensitive topics involving humans dying is cutting edge. I think you've got what it takes to really become a superstar comedian. You're brilliant.
 
Mainly, if you think something is vitally important, don't put in in the hands of dumbasses to spread the message. Warmers are general grade A dumbasses that seem to tend to Communism. More "Crying Indian" less wanna be dictators flying private jets and you will do a better job convincing people. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM
 
HighlandHomie said:
That is hilarious. Really good stuff. You ever think of doing comedy? Snark and making light of serious and sensitive topics involving humans dying is cutting edge. I think you've got what it takes to really become a superstar comedian. You're brilliant.
Click to expand...

Thanks man. Been saving that one up for a special occasion. Glad you liked it.

Oh, and keep up your comedy. It's nice when one comedian appreciates the work of another.
 
HantlersE.jpg
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
I find the climate change movement so full of hubris that they are not worth taking seriously. Thinking humanity could possibly control or even have a meaningful influence on astronomical phenomena is retarded. The main reason to push for global warming reduction is for the side benefits of reducing toxic air pollutants that we actually can have an effect on.
Click to expand...

Why can't humans have an effect on "astronomical phenomena"? Humans have enough nuclear weapons to sterilize the whole planet several times over. I never understood the hubris argument of human capabilities.
 
HighlandHomie said:
Do you take that stance for purely political purposes? Or are you proficient in the sciences and have studied it so much that you've come to your own conclusion?

I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I am in no way close to being educated enough on the subject to speak on it - I just trust the overwhelming and staggering amount of scientists world-wide who have asserted humans have contributed vastly to the decay of the environment in many places.

I am just curious why anyone would dismiss this topic as irrelevant/argue against changing the way we live to help reduce the damage we're doing.
Click to expand...

Why does climate change mean decay of the environment?

I'm not denying climate change, just wondering why that automatically means climate destruction?
 
Gameface said:
Why does climate change mean decay of the environment?

I'm not denying climate change, just wondering why that automatically means climate destruction?
Click to expand...

Current environment is adapted to current climate. Current human activities are largely dependent on current environment. Of course you can also say that the destruction of current environments would mean the creation of new ones.
 
franklin said:
One extra sunspot will undo more than the maybe 2 degree difference the GW lobby is looking for. One big volcanic explosion could add on many more degrees than the GW lobby is looking for. We are talking a minuscule difference by reversing climate change.

Change is good. I don't get the worry. To me, this whole thing comes across as some ultra-conservative, preserve the world in it's past state when I grew up and it should never change from that bastion of glory type of situation.
Click to expand...

Come on. You've seen the charts. You know the science. GW lobby is pretty much every expert who studies the climate, and they're in agreement that the evidence clearly suggests human culpability. As for the second argument, surely it conflicts with the first. If climate change is a good thing, why try and deny human involvement? That's like Neo-Nazis who deny the holocaust, then rant about how the Jews should be wiped out. Not that I'm comparing you to Neo-Nazis. lol

I think climate change will be very disruptive to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. It's easy to sit here in the comfort of the developed world and talk about the opportunity presented by change (I even sometimes have the same impulse). But then one has to think of all of those Bangladeshis whose homes will be flooded and who will have no where to go. We should really be thinking about how to mitigate and manage the disruption.
 
I think humans do affect the climate, the catch is how much. I think that is far from proven.

But I think more needs to be done to increase our environmentally friendly tech. If we can make something cleaner and safer without breaking the bank we should imo.
 
Siro said:
Come on. You've seen the charts. You know the science. GW lobby is pretty much every expert who studies the climate, and they're in agreement that the evidence clearly suggests human culpability. As for the second argument, surely it conflicts with the first. If climate change is a good thing, why try and deny human involvement? That's like Neo-Nazis who deny the holocaust, then rant about how the Jews should be wiped out. Not that I'm comparing you to Neo-Nazis. lol

I think climate change will be very disruptive to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. It's easy to sit here in the comfort of the developed world and talk about the opportunity presented by change (I even sometimes have the same impulse). But then one has to think of all of those Bangladeshis whose homes will be flooded and who will have no where to go. We should really be thinking about how to mitigate and manage the disruption.
Click to expand...

I like you Siro, but this is the dumbassery that I was talking about.
 
Also, In order to meet the caps we need to tell those people in Bangladesh, "I'm sorry, no industrialization or modernization for you!" If you want to appeal you will need to be able to afford your own private jet to Davos.
 
framer said:
I like you Siro, but this is the dumbassery that I was talking about.
Click to expand...

It's just what came to mind. I am not actually comparing anyone to Nazis. The analogy is valid, if over-the-top.
 
The climate changes. That has always been true. Of course, rapid climate change is much more disruptive than gradual climate change. But I just wonder what the goal of anti climate changers is? It seems to be all over the place and seems only very loosely connected to actual climate change.

Obviously we don't really want to reduce climate change to zero.

And I'm still drinking my first cup of coffee so I don't want to try to make a serious point, but it's funny to me that the horrors of climate change accomplish much of what climate change activists want us to impose upon ourselves. Why not just let it happen? There is no realistic plan for us to reverse or even stop climate change over the next 20 years.
 
framer said:
Also, In order to meet the caps we need to tell those people in Bangladesh, "I'm sorry, no industrialization or modernization for you!" If you want to appeal you will need to be able to afford your own private jet to Davos.
Click to expand...

So we agree that human activities are responsible for climate change. Good.
 
Siro said:
So we agree that human activities are responsible for climate change. Good.
Click to expand...

This is a sloppy comment. Human activities may contribute to the rate of climate change, and the rate of climate change might be higher now than is "normal" but Humans are not the sole cause of climate change.
 
Gameface said:
The climate changes. That has always been true. Of course, rapid climate change is much more disruptive than gradual climate change. But I just wonder what the goal of anti climate changers is? It seems to be all over the place and seems only very loosely connected to actual climate change.

Obviously we don't really want to reduce climate change to zero.

And I'm still drinking my first cup of coffee so I don't want to try to make a serious point, but it's funny to me that the horrors of climate change accomplish much of what climate change activists want us to impose upon ourselves. Why not just let it happen? There is no realistic plan for us to reverse or even stop climate change over the next 20 years.
Click to expand...

We've pumped enough carbon into the atmosphere to bring the levels up to those of 5 million years ago. So we've compressed 5 million years of change into a 200 year package. Over human life times, we DO want zero change. I also think climate change fear is good as it pushes beneficial technologies, like renewable energy, forward, even if prospects of reversal are unrealistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top