-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
dhrivnak
Active Member
Sounds like something out of George Orwell's 1984 to me. I value my freedom and even if I disagree I respect your freedom to speak your mind.
The vast majority who I have talked to that do not believe in Global Warming, agree that while there has been a slight increase they really do believe that:
1) The warming is part of a natural cycle as MANY times in history it has been warmer or colder than current. They do not know how we can be CERTAIN the current warming is not at least part due to natural cycles.
2) While fossil fuels have some negative side effects the positive effects greatly outweigh the negative impacts. For example more people die of cold and poverty than due to heat or extreme weather.
3) If true that fossil fuels are so bad why do so many "environmentalists" still drive a gas powered car and still buy significant electricity? Kind of like someone coming up to me walking casually and calmly saying I should run as a bear is coming. Do I believe the person's word or their actions?
4) The warming is so slight, less than 1 degree C, that another 1-2 degrees is of little concern.
PS i do believe there is global warming and it is a threat but even with rooftop solar, a passive solar home, biking to work and driving an electric car. My energy use is still not down 80%, the cut that many scientists say we need to make. I am only down 70% from average but that last bit is looking challenging.
Last edited:
There is an important question that I don't think you are asking. Where are these "vast majority" of people getting their information? I can tell you where I get mine. Anytime I am unsure of something, I defer the scientific literature. That is not to say that I blindly read through a paper like this one and accept it as fact:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6774/abs/404171a0.html
I take a few key notes from reading it:
1. It's in a prestigious, credible scientific journal. Nature, in this case.
2. The authors are both experts in the field.
3. The paper explains the methodology of the research in the abstract.
That is not at all the same as blind faith. The next time someone tells you that global warming is not real, or that evolution is not real, or that the moon is made of cheese, or that Elvis is still alive, don't just take their word for it. Ask them what their source is. Because sadly, there are a lot of misinformation out there on science issues and an even sadder number of people that accept the misinformation as fact. Do not take anything for face value, check the source.
Well there is an honest part, they "do not know". Of course they don't know, because they likely haven't bothered to even ask about how climate change has been driven in the past. The next time someone tells you that it's all a natural cycle, ask them which one.
27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC - YouTube
It's a natural cycle
This is a subtle TINA argument. Also leaves out the people adversely affected by fossil fuel use (the 2+ million deaths each year due to air pollution, water contamination, etc).
Ok time for my opinion. You should base your reaction to global warming based on the current understanding of physics that demonstrates that increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere warm the atmosphere and oceans, altering the climate, impacting biodiversity and affecting humans via rapid changes to crop yields, fishing, flooding, etc.
Sounds like a "amount of stuff = effect of stuff" argument. You are assuming that a slight change in temperature will have slight effects, am I right?
26 -- Science vs. the Feelies - YouTube
No need to believe or not believe. Just review a small portion of the tens of thousands of scientific papers written on the subject and you'll get the big picture.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That doesn't work so well with people who don't trust the scientists and believe they are bought and paid for.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Tigerade thank you and I love your posts as you like Potholer backs them up with sources and facts.
So we are back to the government telling us what we can and cannot say??? Whose government? The Italian?? The German?? How about Burkina Faso??? The U.N? (I'm sure EVERYONE pays attention to the UN right?) You DO realize, right, that governments are made up of bought-and-paid-for politicians?? I value my Constitutional freedoms FAR too highly to give them up or have them usurped by ANY governmental entity. The LESS government is involved in my life, the happier I will be. If anyone wants to spout nonsensical idiocy let them, because the truth will usually win out. Whether it wins out in sufficient time to stop catastrophe--that's another matter. But the solution is not and cannot be more regulation and less freedom.
dhrivnak
Active Member
True. For this I point out that ExxonMobil's profits last quarter is normally larger than the annual budget than the depth of energy and big oil has far more profits than both the EPA and Dept of Energy combined. So if you really follow the money big energy easily trumps the pockets of environmentalists.
My response to that would be "Well that's perfectly fine, as you or anyone else is totally welcome to do the same experiments and research and see if you get a different result. In fact, you could gain an enormous amount of prestige if you do somehow manage to disprove a century and a half worth of physics and chemistry research on this subject. But that's the key thing - you actually have to do the research yourself. Sitting behind a keyboard and hurling insults and vitriol towards people who do the research is not in fact, research".
You want to be happy now, but here in this thread we are very much concerned about Florida because we don't want Florida to go underwater in 100 years (which will certainly happen if we don't take the right decisions NOW).
Actually the sense of this thread is what is the right balance between freedom and regulation if we want to solve the Climate Change/Global Warming issue?
IMO if we add more regulation we will also get more freedom because having a better environment is good for freedom.
ToddRLockwood
Active Member
Two thoughts...
People respond in the negative when you back them into a corner. So how do we get the average consumer to accept responsibility for such a large problem when there are few viable alternatives available to them?
While many people love the idea of electric cars and reducing their carbon footprint, at the end of the day people buy cars with their wallet, not their social conscience. The economic argument must be compelling. Solar energy has only recently crossed the line where the economics are compelling. Now we see venture capital getting behind solar because it makes good economic sense. Hopefully, the same will happen for EVs.
People respond in the negative when you back them into a corner. So how do we get the average consumer to accept responsibility for such a large problem when there are few viable alternatives available to them?
While many people love the idea of electric cars and reducing their carbon footprint, at the end of the day people buy cars with their wallet, not their social conscience. The economic argument must be compelling. Solar energy has only recently crossed the line where the economics are compelling. Now we see venture capital getting behind solar because it makes good economic sense. Hopefully, the same will happen for EVs.
The problem is that, if those scientists COULD be bought by the oil companies, they would have been. You think being a climate scientist is the path to Big Bucks? HA!
The problem is the politicians ARE bought and paid for - though maybe not directly - but their Sugar Daddies have been whispering in their ear so long they THINK that's the truth.
Take a look at the story of getting lead out of paint and gasoline. Of course the oil and paint companies said lead wasn't a problem, even though the ROMANS knew it was a problem (they just didn't know lead could leech from their water pipes).
Of course this could also happen. But a Technical Board named from the Goverment would be a guarantee of independence IMO. In fact the main principles of the Board could be accurately written and debunked in order to guarantee a fair action for the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.
This way no worry of crooked judgments by the side of the Board IMO.
Last edited:
Beyond this, I read some comments today (not on this site) detailing how all science is essentially people who are influenced by the devil (read: liberals) trying to disprove the existence of god. Of course, these people don't get the irony of their posting that nonsense on the internet. These are, I assume, functioning adults who have been convinced that science is evil. It doesn't matter what the experts in their respective fields have to say about climate change, evolution, or quantum physics. It's all an evil plot.
When it comes down to it, the people who deny climate change for financial reasons may be able to be reasoned with once their house is filling up with water. Some people, on the other hand, are beyond reasoning.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
I don't think it should ever be criminal, but I think there should at least be some avenue for civil litigation. It'd be a rational follow-up to the lawsuits against Phillip-Morris, etc...
dhrivnak
Active Member
Maybe in Italy but there is NO-WAY to ensure there are no crooked judgments in a government board. You really need to read the book 1984 by George Orwell.
Sorry we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
When I studied about the matter of Climate Change/Global Warming on Coursera they told that in corrupted areas of the world pollution very easily increases. We have to fight against corruption in life not only because of the Climate Change/Global Warming issue but also for other reasons. Main thing is not to give up and believe in a better world IMO.
Last edited:
James Anders
Member
Yes, because we all know that governments are completely responsible and devoid of bias.
Regardless where someone comes down on the science of climate change, this whole thread just blows my mind. And not in a good way. That some people express concern does help restore my faith somewhat. Blind faith in government is a sure-fire path to destruction.
Don't agree. If we don't trust our Goverments we cannot issue any rules and we would be in an anarchy situation. As I stated in previous posts best thing would be to have an International Board in order to get rid of local political matters.
James Anders
Member
Trust in government and the limits of government is a double-edged sword.
History has shown us again and again that there must be limits placed upon governmental power. This has been particularly brought to light in the USA with all of the various governmental abuses and overreaching. Look at Italy and Germany in the mid-1930s. I believe that it is good thing to always be a bit skeptical of one's government.
This is not to say all government is bad - but there must be clearly defined limits on power. This is what prompted our US Constitution - which enumerated exactly what powers that the people decided to grant the government - and not the other way around.
There is nothing inherently noble or different about the people who run government. They are flawed and imperfect as the rest of us. That you're willing to entrust a governmental entity to make such decisions just amazes me. And I don't mean any disrespect and you're obviously free to believe whatever you like. I was just as amazed when I heard Kennedy's words. Jaw-dropping amazement.
History has shown us again and again that there must be limits placed upon governmental power. This has been particularly brought to light in the USA with all of the various governmental abuses and overreaching. Look at Italy and Germany in the mid-1930s. I believe that it is good thing to always be a bit skeptical of one's government.
This is not to say all government is bad - but there must be clearly defined limits on power. This is what prompted our US Constitution - which enumerated exactly what powers that the people decided to grant the government - and not the other way around.
There is nothing inherently noble or different about the people who run government. They are flawed and imperfect as the rest of us. That you're willing to entrust a governmental entity to make such decisions just amazes me. And I don't mean any disrespect and you're obviously free to believe whatever you like. I was just as amazed when I heard Kennedy's words. Jaw-dropping amazement.
