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

[DutchJazzer]

This is how the prime minister goes to work daily.

this is how he goes home after work

this is how obama arives for a 15 minute speech

it is not that the right doesn't "believe" in global warming or climate change. they think its none of the governments Business to institute a carbon tax. while the president travels like that. the president is not a king/noble/ royalty he is a man SERVING the people.
thats what the right thinks.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There is no doubt that human activity is having an impact on the climate. There is a lot of doubt about what impact it is ultimately having (hence the need to change the title of this movement from "global warming" to "climate change"). There is no doubt that Western efforts can have anything more than a fractional impact on this situation (China's increase in pollution is many times more than our largest proposed decrease, and they are just one of many third world countries in the process of industrializing), and there is also no doubt that a single natural event such as a major volcanic eruption could have a massively greater impact on this situation than anything humans are currently doing.

Given all of this, most of the people on the opposite side of this issue from HH are actually against climate change legislation. They are not necessarily denying that humans cause climate change (though some of them who refuse to look at the data are). But those who are willing to look at the data also know that we do not have the power to stop this trend. We hardly even have the poser to impact it. Instead, climate change legislation is being used by the left as an opportunity to control and tax, even though the greatest proponents admit that their impact on climate change will be minimal. In short, the reason many people are against this legislation has nothing to do with the belief that humans have no impact on the environment.

To those who support climate change legislation, how many scientists can you find who claim that the politicians plan to reverse this trend will work? The answer is a resounding zero. There is not a single respected scientist on this entire planet who will make a claim anywhere close to that, yet the proponents of climate change continually talk and act like that is what is at stake here. What a joke!

So, is this information a reason to do nothing? No. Recycling, turning off lights, eliminating unnecessary automobile trips, etc. is undoubtedly a good thing.

But is this information a reason not to destroy entire sectors of the economy? Yes.

I look forward to seeing a sane proponent of this legislation take on the points Mellow made in post #27. Unfortunately, I have a feeling I'll be waiting forever.

 

[Harambe]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6rRNANSgI

 

[Red]

People fight against the notion of human caused global warming, or a significant role of humans in global warming, for both scientific and political reasons. Included are conspiracy theorists who will no longer trust Science as an institution regardless of the conclusions/warnings rendered by science. Science is as much distrusted as Big Government. And there are the more serious warriors in the battle, with front lines like oil drilling in the Arctic. Those front line battles are fought by attorney's, politicians, citizen groups, lobbyists for the energy giants.

People making good $$ off the very substance, fossil fuels, fingered as a leading cause of human generated global warming, have no incentive to acknowledge any such detrimental role in climate change, or even acknowledge the very existence of human caused global warming. Since many others feel dependence on fossil fuels is indeed feeding into climate change and helping to drive global warming, a political/cultural civil war has enveloped our body politic.

I'm not a "climate scientist", and I am not in a position to know where the truth lies without deferring to experts. And like lawyers where the stakes are high, both sides have credentialed scientists on their side to convince me yay or nay.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the energy wars have become a part of he more generalized civil war infecting our politics and national dialogue on way too many issues. I thought the Vietnam Era was divisive. Now it seems like nothing compared to the era of 24/7 cable news cycle and it's ability to demonize one side or the other and help make America more and more divided against itself.....

 

[Jamezz]

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.

Not the Jews as a people, but the Israeli Government could go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

 

[♪alt13]

Maybe we could build more of this kinda stuff?
.

 

[Jamezz]

Please anything but wind mills, they destroy the scenic views.

 

[♪alt13]

Please anything but wind mills, they destroy the scenic views.

There is a nimby standing in the way of every one of those. Guess we know which nimby you are.

The truth is we need all of them.

 

[Jamezz]

There is a nimby standing in the way of every one of those. Guess we know which nimby you are.

The truth is we need all of them.

What's nimby?

 

[♪alt13]

What's nimby?

not in my back yard

 

[Jamezz]

So DutchJazzer negs me over my coment about the Israeli govt. I guess if it's antisemitic to be against the Israeli govt then it's anti-american to be be against the US government, makes sense.

 

[franklin]

 

[franklin]

 

[Jamezz]

2 degrees is going to disrupt billions of lives? That's not going to happen any more than Halley's Comet, September 23, 2015, 21/12/2015, or Y2K.

You become suspiciously active in Jazzfanz around this hour. Is this when it gets slow at work for ya?

 

[framer]

Maybe we could build more of this kinda stuff?
.

That is how you separate the sincere warmers from the idiots. "So you desire to have a clean, efficient power source that actually works. You must support nuclear energy, right?" Because if they say "No" then the danger isn't really all that bad. It's like someone telling you that they are starving to death but they don't want to eat broccoli. Hell, even France gets this. . .

 

[♪alt13]

That is how you separate the sincere warmers from the idiots. "So you desire to have a clean, efficient power source that actually works. You must support nuclear energy, right?" Because if they say "No" then the danger isn't really all that bad. It's like someone telling you that they are starving to death but they don't want to eat broccoli. Hell, even France gets this. . .

Totally agree, which is why I put nuclear power first. It's probably the single most effective thing we could do to reduce emissions. (from there there is no particular order)

That being said I would be against a traditional nuclear plant in Utah. Not because of the waste but because of the water requirements. We just don't have it and we have plenty of wind, solar, geothermal resources. I would be for a molten salt nuclear plant though.

 

[Carbon13]

As Americans, it's difficult for us to understand the effects of global warming because we are not affected by it first hand. We are too rich. But in countries that depend on mariculture and farming its a big ****ing deal. Two degrees temperature is the difference between having land to feed your family and fleeing your home for higher ground. Not to mention the disease and famine one might experience in say, the Indus Valley. The thing is, is its not a matter of informing people, they've already been informed. Its about convincing them on an emotional level it matters. I've found things like photos of ice recession on glaciers and geographical maps showing potential inundation to be especially effective. But at the end of the day it likely wont affect Americans much in their lifetimes nor will it have life and death consequences for their children. So long as its far away and someone elses problem, I suppose thats good enough for most of us.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

Humans are not the sole cause of climate change but we are the cause of global warming. There is a common misconception that we know that we are causing warming because of temperature readings at weather stations and we reverse engineer from there. That's not how it works at all. It's actually done in reverse.

We know how much energy we are transferring into the atmosphere and we know how much warming that should cause. This much is indisputable as it is a matter of well understood chemistry to calculate. Now that we have calculated the warming caused by man we look at the temperature data. If the warming is higher than our calculation than natural processes and or feedback loops are causing the warming beyond our calculation. If the warming is less than our calculation than natural mitigation(ocean absorption of Co2) and or natural processes that cause cooling are causing the difference.

The good news for humans is that thus far at least the readings have been less than our calculated effect meaning that the earth has mitigated some of our emissions and maybe that the earth would be cooling without them. The bad news for humans is that the earth is warming albeit less than our emissions would cause acting alone.

This all means that although human activities are not the sole cause of climate change we are the cause of the warming trend.

this pretty much demonstrates why people don't take it as seriously as they should. One time they hear about the earth's temperature will rise X degrees in the next 10 years .. then the models have proved so far from accurate that it's hard for a lot of people to believe how significant the changes are and potentially could be etc .. So much conflicting information

In Aust. the extreme view has really damaged the credibility of ration warming scientists being taken seriously. Everytime there is a fire or flood the hysterical "ooh it's because of climate change" really puts people off listening to hard facts properly. You get clowns who a few years back said it'd never rain again and all our dams would dry up and every bushfire is a result of colossal climate change etc and they wonder why people don't take them seriously.

 

[Hotdog]

Sometimes people and their politics are so confusing.

Republicans are supposed to be the conservatives, but when it comes to global warming they are like, **** it, let's roll the dice and see what happens. What do we got to lose?

Why is gambling with the only inhabital planet we know of ok with these people?

I have to be honest. I'm not sure what's really going on. Whl really does? We have so many liars and and sometimes confused people relaying information. How is someone supposed to know for sure? What I do know is, when it comes to something so serious, you'd better take it serious. If the neighborhood prankster pulls a bad prank by telling you your child is choking, you'd still run to make sure it wasn't really happening right? Even if you were pretty sure it wasnt.

I'd hate to be bent over and taxed unnecessarily, and have the whole issue used as way to abuse your ignorance on the matter. But what are you gonna do? Both sides have to put some serious thought into it. You can't have one side acting like children and making it hard to get somewhere with it.

What is it gonna hurt to at least try?

 

[franklin]