Climate Change Denial

[Corndart]

truth and facts hurt feelings. Sorry about your feelings.

Where are your facts?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Another one for the Ignore filter

 

[orion2001]

Where are your facts?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Another one for the Ignore filter

Hah, you beat me with the link! Looking forward to the peer reviewed study on global warming consensus being 50-50 from the crack team of critical thinkers and scientists at upisnowdown.org

 

[pepperoni]

Actually the whole climate change topic is highly divided among the scientists more like 50:50.
Not 99%

Oh dear

 

[JRP3]

truth and facts hurt feelings. Sorry about your feelings.

I'm sorry you posted a lie not a fact.

 

[patmurphey]

Existential for you? Probably not since you are a wealthy American. Existential for your kids or grandkids? Nothing is 100%, but like 99% of scientists say yes. Existential for some people in some locations right now? Just ask the refugees who have to relocate due to their climate changing.

Look at the actual science and not the political hype and you will find that the warming is quite modest and well within the adaptability of human civilization. It is a worthy goal to reduce carbon emissions to the extent possible, but any reasonable projection of human related carbon will have very little effect. The hype that weather events are climate change is not supported by the record. Your percentages are absurd, not in accordance with the actual papers and research done by scientists. BTW, none of the hyped models have proven to be accurate.

Reference: "Unsettled" by Steven E. Koonin, if you are brave enough to approach the subject with an open mind.

Amazon.com

I still support the changeover to sustainable energy and a reasonable reduction of human carbon emissions.

 

[eevee-fan]

Look at the actual science and not the political hype and you will find that the warming is quite modest and well within the adaptability of human civilization. It is a worthy goal to reduce carbon emissions to the extent possible, but any reasonable projection of human related carbon will have very little effect. The hype that weather events are climate change is not supported by the record. Your percentages are absurd, not in accordance with the actual papers and research done by scientists. BTW, none of the hyped models have proven to be accurate.

Reference: "Unsettled" by Steven E. Koonin, if you are brave enough to approach the subject with an open mind.

Amazon.com

I still support the changeover to sustainable energy and a reasonable reduction of human carbon emissions.

Only makes total sense when you do not understand how phase change works in relation to temperature change.

 

[HyperionMark]

Look at the actual science and not the political hype and you will find that the warming is quite modest and well within the adaptability of human civilization. It is a worthy goal to reduce carbon emissions to the extent possible, but any reasonable projection of human related carbon will have very little effect. The hype that weather events are climate change is not supported by the record. Your percentages are absurd, not in accordance with the actual papers and research done by scientists. BTW, none of the hyped models have proven to be accurate.

Reference: "Unsettled" by Steven E. Koonin, if you are brave enough to approach the subject with an open mind.

Amazon.com

I still support the changeover to sustainable energy and a reasonable reduction of human carbon emissions.

I actually look quite deeply into the science myself having been trained in the sciences. But I'm likely not going to change your mind, so I will just leave this link here and move on:

A critical review of Steven Koonin’s 'Unsettled' » Yale Climate Connections

‘Tilting at strawmen.’ Or ‘red flag.’ There are no finer shorthand descriptions of a controversial new book on climate science.

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[JRP3]

Reference: "Unsettled" by Steven E. Koonin, if you are brave enough to approach the subject with an open mind.

He's not a climate scientist, he's not writing about his area of expertise.

 

[drtimhill]

Actually the whole climate change topic is highly divided among the scientists more like 50:50.
Not 99%

Sure, sure. Care to provide a source for that "fact" ?

 

[nwdiver]

Actually the whole climate change topic is highly divided among the scientists more like 50:50.
Not 99%

See... here's the problem with attempting to reject a thread of reality. Reality is an interwoven fabric of facts. The radiative forcing of CO2 doesn't just explain the current warming we're experiencing... it also explains why Venus is hotter than Mercury and how a minuscule shift in Earths orbit can put a mile of ice over the current location of NYC.

If we're wrong on the physics of CO2 then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? What change causes glacial cycles?

 

[eevee-fan]

 

[mspohr]

Most telling for lack of restrictions on building in flood zones: "We look for a balance"

 

[MontyFloyd]

Actually the whole climate change topic is highly divided among the scientists more like 50:50.
Not 99%

Truth:
CO2 traps heat
Extracting Carbon rich fossil fuels adds to the total surface Carbon.

Take a glass of water and 2 tablespoons of salt.
Add 1 Tbs of salt in water, mix and taste.
Add the other Tbs of salt, mix and taste.
Taste saltier, right?

That is the same thing that is happening to the earths atmosphere, adding more "salt, aka Carbon, to the atmosphere.

 

[eevee-fan]

Truth:
CO2 traps heat
Extracting Carbon rich fossil fuels adds to the total surface Carbon.

Burning fossil fuel (including nuclear) also adds heat! So it's actually a double win for wind and solar.

 

[mspohr]

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide

www.theguardian.com

“Reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”

“Emphasize the uncertainty”

Economic scaremongering

Greenwashing: talk clean, act dirty

We’re part of the solution!”

 

[MontyFloyd]

Burning fossil fuel (including nuclear) also adds heat! So it's actually a double win for wind and solar.

Teh?
There is already far more than enough heat in the atmosphere, simply need to harnas.

Perhaps being sarcastic?

 

[Tiger]

Regardless whether climate change is real or unreal, it seems they've finally designed the nail for its coffin:

 

[mspohr]

Climate denial is waning on the right. What’s replacing it might be just as scary

Representatives of this line of thought around the world are, in many cases, echoing eco-fascist ideas that themselves are rooted in an earlier age of blood-and-soil nationalism.

The right is reclaiming that older Malthusian population rhetoric and is using that as a cudgel in green terms rather than unpopular racist terms,”

Online, favored targets such as Greta Thunberg or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been shown in memes as Nazis or devils intent on impoverishing western civilization through their supposedly radical ideas to combat climate change. Fieschi said the right’s interaction with climate is far more than just about borders – it is animating fears that personal freedoms are under attack from a cosseted, liberal elite.

The response to this trend on the right has led to what academics Joe Turner and Dan Bailey call “ecobordering”, where restrictions on immigration are seen as vital to protect the nativist stewardship of nature and where the ills of environmental destruction are laid upon those from developing countries, ignoring the far larger consumptive habits of wealthy nations. In an analysis of 22 far-right parties in Europe, the academics found this thinking is rife among rightwing parties and “portrays effects as causes and further normalizes racist border practices and colonial amnesia within Europe”.

 

[MontyFloyd]

it is animating fears that personal freedoms are under attack from a cosseted, liberal elite.

IOW, not blaming self for driving drunk, texting, and causing a huge accident.

 

[mspohr]

Why some of your favorite podcasts are filled with oil company ads

All advertising must meet our advertising acceptability guidelines,” said a New York Times spokesperson, Nicole Taylor. “This prohibits advertising that is intentionally misleading, deceptive, or contains false information. Ads submitted to the New York Times are reviewed by an advertising standards team and are subject to factchecking.” Yet, Exxon’s misleading claims about carbon capture passed this filter. Taylor didn’t say whether the Exxon ad went through the company’s factchecking process, just that ads “are subject” to factchecking. So either the ad passed, or it wasn’t checked closely in the first place.