Quantcast
Climate Change Deniers/Skeptics or Believer?

Forums - General Discussion - Climate Change Deniers/Skeptics or Believer?

Climate Change Deniers/Skeptics or Believer?

Climate change believer. ... 80 52.63%
 
Climate change skeptic/denier. 41 26.97%
 
Unsure about climate change: fence sitter. 17 11.18%
 
Candy!!! 14 9.21%
 
Total:152
numonex said:
I oppose nuclear energy and fossil fuels. More wind mills and more solar panels and geo-thermal and other renewable energy sources should be built now.

Nuclear power is the most expensive energy source to set up and safely maintain. Nuclear waste disposal is expensive. Do you suggest dumping toxic nuclear waste into the landfill or seas/oceans? We do not need more Chernobyl catastrophes.

You just regard my views as radical liberalism or an anarchist. I am a environmental activist. You could say I am a Green Conservative. Conserve/save the environment and go Green!

Nuclear power is not more expensive than renewable power. Period. It's not even close. Once the plant is up and running, energy is ridiculously cheap.

And no, you're not an anarchist. I'm not quite sure what you think an anarchist is but advocating a larger government role and regulation of power sure doesn't fit any model of anarchy I'm familiar with...




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network

I'm not a climate change believer, because belief is not a strong enough term. Beleif does not apply to science.

 

I acknowledge the existance of human caused climate change, I don't merely believe it exists.



I'm really more concerned with the population growth, which is a direct causation.  If population growth remains steady at today's level then in ~700 years they'll only be enough land density left for an individual to occupy 1 metre squared to his or herself. 

Obviously it can't get to that stage and 0% population growth has to occur sometime fairly short-term.  Which is really quite scary, as I think we have a better chance of agreeing to a war than to organise a world-wide regulation on controlling the population epidemic, if it means countries have to voluntarily reduce their GDP.  Ironically, one of the ways we can counter population growth is by reducing the average life expectancy by increasing carbon emissions and pollution...or maybe the increase in natural disasters is nature's way?



To anyone who claims to be a denier/skeptic of climate change. 

Are you a journalist paid by Rupert Murdoch News Ltd? Maybe you work on a local news channel or paid to write far-right wing articles to please your conservative like minded readers. Say no if you do not want to  know. Fair and balanced news is the Fox News motto. ;)))

The believers can afford to be wrong on this issue. The climate change skeptic/deniers can not afford to be wrong on this issue. 

Why am I against nuclear power- the road is always to a path of high enriched uranium to mass produce nuclear weapons. A rogue terrorist nation like Iran should never have access to nuclear power because the road will lead to nuclear weapons which require enrichment of uranium of 95% . There is a huge issue with nuclear waste disposal  and the safe disposal of it in the long term. You can not safely dump nuclear toxic waste into landfill for extended periods of time and you can not dump it into oceans/seas/lakes without adverse side effects. 

The cost of setting up nuclear plants and safely maintaining them is extremely expensive- multiplier effect based on more plants. Cost savings and cutting corners on safety and maintenance on nuclear plants may lead to Chernobyl meltdowns. Multi-national companies like to save costs and cut corners on safety and maintenance and not conducting audits. 



TheRealMafoo said:

 

 

Why is "I don't know" always considered bad when you ask someone of authority? The reason Climate Change (updated from Global Warming because they were wrong) is such a hot topic, is because governments are spending billions of dollars with real world impacts, who don't even know what the problem is yet.


Climate change wasn't updated from global warming because it was wrong...

The average global temperatures are stil predicted to rise, and in actuality, the observed increases are at the higher ends of the increases that have been predicted.  The globe is certainly warming.

The reason it changed from global warming, is because climate change doesnt just cause warming, it also causes increases in extreme weather events including freak cold snaps. So in a lot of places there have been abnormally cold periods and so stupid people are like, oh its cold, the world isnt warming at all.  Even though on average the earth still is warming.  So it was actually changed to avoid the issue of uninformed people misinterpretting what it meant.



Around the Network
rocketpig said:
Mendicate Bias said:
rocketpig said:
Mendicate Bias said:

There is just as much a consensus in the scientific community that the current climate change is man made as there is that evolution is true.

While I agree with several of your other points, this is patently untrue. Evolution has been proven in almost every way except actually witnessing it because of the immense amount of time required to do so.

Climate change is a relatively new subject and the actual recorded data acquired thus far (much less than the 160 or so years we've been working on evolution) pales in comparison.

And I'm not just talking out of my ass here. My best friend is a geology student and we've had lengthy talks about this very subject, on top of some of the journals and articles I've read on the subject. There is A TON of information we don't know about climate change and one of the most important factors is "how much is caused by man?" When that's still a pressing question, comparing it to evolution is folly.

What I agree on is we can't predict accurately exactly what the effects of climate change will be, but we can clearly see that it is happening. We have far more than 160 years of data. Using the ice cores in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic we have hundreds of thousands of years of data. Yes all the doom and gloom reports are probably over exaggerated, but the overall consensus is the same, no matter what happens in the future what is happening now is man made.

Of course there's a lot of data, as there was in the early days of evolution, too. The problem is that we don't understand enough of it, just as we didn't understand the data we were collecting in the early days of evolution study. The fact that the Earth naturally changes temperature throws an ENORMOUS monkey wrench in the entire study.

Will we figure it out over time? Sure, I think so. Should we invest more money into unbiased research? Definitely. Whether it's man made or not or whatever mixture in between, we need to find out why this is happening and what the effects will be longterm for mankind.

But at this point, very little has been proven concretely past "the Earth is warming; how much, we're not really sure". That's not the same stage we're at with evolution.

Yeah, not to mention a lot of the data has a LOT of flaws.  Really the only concrete data we do have is the Sattelite data that's been collected for the last 10-15 years.

Stuff like weatherstation monitoring has problems due to the effects of urban sprawl and the fact that different weatherstation's data are left out of the reports at different times. 

The Ice cores have their own issues... of which I forget.

Not to mention that.... climate change existed before man existed.

Really what should be looked into are external controls, but nobody wants to do that.

Everyone's afraid of Geoengineering when in reality it's the best and safest choice.



numonex said:
rocketpig said:
numonex said:

Climate change deniers/skeptics religiously watch Fox News! The same viewers who believe every word the oil industry spread in propaganda in opposition to climate change. Climate change deniers/skeptics are more than likely right wing religious nuts and climate change is not mentioned in the Bible. Big Oil companies and Big Miners got their way by the failure of Copenhagen. It is now up to left wing governments and environmentalists to step up and take measures to slow down the climate change and global warming. 

There is lots of evidence, studies and research by scientists and environmentalists to prove that climate change and global warming is a growing concern and it is getting worse due to the increasing human population and need for carbon fuels to maintain economic growth. The world is getting hotter every year, the polar zones are melting, seasons are out of cycle and more natural disasters. 

Save the polar bears and support climate change. Carbon tax is needed to slow down the big polluters and save the planet from extinction. Think about the future and go Green. Save energy, recycle and invest in renewable energy sources: solar, hydro-electric, geothermal and wind. Nuclear no way- toxic nuclear waste is catastrophic and can only be dumped in land fill or in the ocean/seas. 

Incredible. You sit there and insult anyone who disagrees with you, claiming ignorance on their part, while you're spewing misinformation and nonsense left and right.

Way to go, champ.

Why should we give a damn about the polar bears? I'm far more concerned with the possibility of frozen methane melting and destroying mankind within generations. Fuck the polar bears.

To be against the burning of fossil fuels AND nuclear energy is cork-on-the-fork stupid. Renewable energy is generations away from being anywhere close to the point of supporting mankind (at its current population and demand). What do you suggest mankind do in the meantime, return to caves?

That's the problem with radical liberalism like this. It's this unreasonable kind of thinking that stops real progress from being made. Instead of drastically cutting back on fossil fuels by working hard on modern nuclear power, we get rantings from the left saying we shouldn't invest in anything except "green" power. And, in the meantime, we keep burning fossil fuels like fucking crazy and perpetuating all the problems that come along with dirty fuel instead of creating an intelligent framework for bridging the gap between fossil fuel consumption and sustainable green energy.

I oppose nuclear energy and fossil fuels. More wind mills and more solar panels and geo-thermal and other renewable energy sources should be built now. Carbon taxes and increased fossil fuels can pay towards the development of renewable energy sources. 

Nuclear power is the most expensive energy source to set up and safely maintain. Nuclear waste disposal is expensive. Do you suggest dumping toxic nuclear waste into the landfill or seas/oceans? We do not need more Chernobyl catastrophes.

You just regard my views as radical liberalism or an anarchist. I am a environmental activist. You could say I am a Green Conservative. Conserve/save the environment and go Green!

BTW: I support the views of Alex Jones and oppose Glenn Beck.Fox News and Glenn Beck's views on 9/11 and climate change are wrong. Alex Jones exposes the truth on both the Republicans/Democrats. 

I am 9/11 Truth Now Supporter and  a Climate change believer. 

Don't forget that you think all religions were created by the Maltese Knights to become rich.

And think the President of Iran is a great man... (maybe)?

Honestly, I think you are probably just some big parody account.



Fumanchu said:

I'm really more concerned with the population growth, which is a direct causation.  If population growth remains steady at today's level then in ~700 years they'll only be enough land density left for an individual to occupy 1 metre squared to his or herself. 

Obviously it can't get to that stage and 0% population growth has to occur sometime fairly short-term.  Which is really quite scary, as I think we have a better chance of agreeing to a war than to organise a world-wide regulation on controlling the population epidemic, if it means countries have to voluntarily reduce their GDP.  Ironically, one of the ways we can counter population growth is by reducing the average life expectancy by increasing carbon emissions and pollution...or maybe the increase in natural disasters is nature's way?

You are talking about depopulation, sounds extreme. Mao and Stalin and other dictators effectively achieved that by starving or killing their own people. Communism or National Socialism. Purge the people who do not deserve to live or fit a specific model of perfection like Hitler's Aryan race.  

Birth control and abortion help control population growth. The Catholic church  opposes birth control and abortion due to their draconian 2000 year old doctrines. 

One child per couple policy just like China may be the way to go. People do not have to be killed or starved under a Communist dictatorship. 

0% population growth. Why not go for negative population growth? Low birth rates,more people leaving the country and higher death rates would  result in a negative annual growth rate for that nation. Developing  third world nations have higher population growths than developed first world nations. 



numonex said:

To anyone who claims to be a denier/skeptic of climate change. 

Are you a journalist paid by Rupert Murdoch News Ltd? Maybe you work on a local news channel or paid to write far-right wing articles to please your conservative like minded readers. Say no if you do not want to  know is the Fox News motto. Fair and balanced news is the Fox News motto. ;)))

The believers can afford to be wrong on this issue. The climate change skeptic/deniers can not afford to be wrong on this issue. 

Why am I against nuclear power- the road is always to a path of high enriched uranium to mass produce nuclear weapons. A rogue terrorist nation like Iran should never have access to nuclear power because the road will lead to nuclear weapons which require enrichment of uranium of 95% . There is a huge issue with nuclear waste disposal  and the safe disposal of it in the long term. You can not safely dump nuclear toxic waste into landfill for extended periods of time and you can not dump it into oceans/seas/lakes without adverse side effects. 

The cost of setting up nuclear plants and safely maintaining them is extremely expensive- multiplier effect based on more plants. Cost savings and cutting corners on safety and maintenance on nuclear plants may lead to Chernobyl meltdowns. Multi-national companies like to save costs and cut corners on safety and maintenance and not conducting audits. 


Can they?

What happens if global cliamate change ISN'T man made.

Then all of the attempts to cut carbon emmissions and everything else is wasted because the truth is... the planet itself puts WAAAAAAAAAAY more greenhouse gases in the air then we could ever hope to.


Then with all of our focus on trying to stop our carbon, we've ignored all the other carbon in our hubris of "Something is happening so it HAS to be man."

Global climate change despite 100% of th efforst going through marches on, and most people die.  Just as if we woulda did nothing.  Except before everyone dies they had less fun.

 

Gee, too bad rather then trying to use it for political gain, the governmetns of the world didn't invest in Geoengineering.

Then we'd of been able to prevent this disaster.  In fact we'd be able to prevent EVERY disaster involved in global warming, both natural and man made.

 

There is a LOT of promising Geo-engineering out there, but it's underfunded and demonized simply because it doesn't fit the political agenda of those who have hijacked global warming.

Even though it's a BETTER solution.



Mendicate Bias said:

I hate how you all make this political.

This is pretty much the exact same situation that existed with the evolution debate a few decades ago. This is science, not opinion. The research has been done and the data is there. There is just as much a consensus in the scientific community that the current climate change is man made as there is that evolution is true.

Most of the people giving their opinions here have probably read a single article or book on the subject and think their experts. How did this country go from being at the forefront of science and technology to banning stem cell funding, denying evolution, denying global warming and trying to make out the scientist as being some shady back door business man making millions off lying to the public.

The funny thing is there is just as much money and jobs in "green"/renewable energy, if not more, as there is in oil. Its just the people that have the money now don't want to give it up. If we find a better source of energy a hundred years in the future we will probably run into the same problem again. All the billionaires that make their money off green energy will resist change.

btw I'm not supporting Numonix, he's just as bad as the people denying man made climate change because their political party tells them to.


On it being political ... I think you need to read about Patrick Moore, he has a PHD in ecology and is one of the co-founders of greenpeace. Here is a small portion of his wiki page:

"In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."[26] Moore contends that for the environmental movement "most of the really serious problems have been dealt with", seeking now to "invent doom and gloom scenarios".[27] He suggests they romanticise peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as "anti-human".[28][29] "

 

Now if you want to understand people's reasoning as to why they aren't true believers of "global warming" spend some time of your own reading Anthony Watts' (a former meteorologist) blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) where he analyzes and interprets the data and methodology used by climate researchers.

I also recommend that you look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ where individuals audited all the weather stations in the United States; and based on current standards that are supposed to be followed 92% are not accurate enough to measure the temperature change associated with global warming. The most common reason for this inaccuracy is what is known as the urban heat island effect, and this impacts these weather stations because over time their surrounding area has changed from being in a park or field that is properly shaded to being in a parking lot or on top of a large building, constantly exposed to direct sunlight and often placed next to an external heating source (like a vent for an industrial air conditioner).

 

If you actually look at the argument that comes from many/most skeptics you will find that the underlying data used is in questionable shape, the methodology used to interpret and combine the data if flawed, scientists who demonstrate how solar influences (like sun-spot activity) are having an influence on weather are being ignored, many of the researchers involved have demonstrated biases, and many of the individuals and organizations pushing for action stand to gain financially from the action they propose being taken.

This isn't a question of people rejecting global warming as a matter of faith, many of the most significant papers in climate science that are used to argue for global warming wouldn't be published in any other field because of their flaws; and many of the researchers would be fired (and potentially lose their PHD) if they used similar methodologies in other fields.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that there is no man made global warming, but with the shape of the science you can hardly say that the evidence to support such a claim is non-existent.