Bitcoin Forum

Yeah, why do people do that? I mean, come on, it's a fact for christ sake!
What do they win from denying it? And even if they don't think it's true, what would be the problem with a green sustainable world?
http://www.chicagonow.com/bronzeville-urban-green/files/2013/08/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg

 I don't think most sceptics are opposed to greener energy or the stuff listed in that picture.

No, but many of them thinks it's unnecessary (and the picture was a joke to end the post).

They think what is unnecessary?

For example change from fossil fuel to renewable energy?

Do they? Fossil fuels will run out eventually so they won't have any choice.

Surprisingly many people do. They think that as long as we have fossil fuels there's no reason to even think about what we'll do when we run out of it. My post is because I discussed with a conservative idiot about this earlier today.

Well there's always going to be conservative idiots, but that doesn't mean all climate sceptics are.

I think people prefer to live in ignorance, it makes them live happily.

Billions of people are religious... we live in a very ignorant world.

Don't blindly assume that all scientists agree here but climate change is real, it certainly appears as though this number has been fudged with by only taking the extreme weather.

Climate Change is a fact for sure, but what's in open debate is whether it's really humans that are the cause for it and whether it's an unavoidable thing, for me, I've been convinced that it's simply because of the explosion in the human population and with that we've had an increase in all sorts of industries like the meat industries that produce carbon dioxide naturally, the earth simply isn't capable of holding this many people and it's showing.Even if you got rid of all the machines producing Carbon Dioxide you're still going to have the problem of global warming and climate change and again, while things like fossil fuels can certainly do damage to what I'll call the immediate environment with smog and things like that I don't think it will have as major impact as people like to believe.

Unfortunately lobbyists have completely ruined this particular scientific debate, I have no doubt of that, they keep constantly trying to mess with data and experiments for their own gains which makes it very difficult to get reliable information.

The public discussion of climate change is a classic Machiavelli.

The "right" denies it exists at all.

The "left" want to fight it by higher taxes etc.

What is beneath the surface is once again the socialism for the rich. Those who cause pollution must be the ones who clean it up. But this cost is to be externalized to the public. This is the point that is never discussed. And this scheme has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Because of that, corporations were never incentivized or forced to develop cleaner technologies in the first place.

Climate problems wouldn't exist in the first place if we weren't so dependent on oil. In fact our cities, our whole society is structured to promote today's car culture, to depend on oil. All this also protects the power of the military-industrial complex.

Hemp has always been suppressed and demonized as one of the most promising and powerful alternatives, it would be too disruptive not only for the fossil fuels industry, but also for a lot of others.

http://www.hemp.com/2011/04/hemp-to-potentially-replace-reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
http://grist.org/business-technology/hemp-wonderplant/

Bullshit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8329612.stm -  It did not take me long to find evidence of this, looks like there have been plenty of studies, the amount of humans and cows on this planet producing methane would easily overtake fossil fuels, there's also an issue the article rightly points out that in order to make space for the farming industry they've had to clear away lots of woodland which of course means that there are less plants to take in the Carbon Dioxide and turn it into Oxygen.

Again, while fossil fuels certainly contribute to the problem, I don't believe they are the main cause of the problem as hysterical people would have you believe, in order to solve this problem we'll either have to kill off half the population ( which of course no one sane would agree with ) or develop space flight and find planets to spread the population out more so it causes less damage to the atmosphere of our home planet.

Edit: I almost forgot about this, there is also this option but it would take mass production on a global scale: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/124383-bacteria-converts-carbon-dioxide-into-liquid-fuel

If politicians, energy corporations, manufacturers... deny their part in climate change, they get to have more time to change. It's their livelihood you are talking about. Those people knows climate change is a reality, they can't admit to it openly. They do not want to face radical change, but the climate is not going to wait for them.

This.

Huge money has been spend to convince the world the climate is changing. You need to wonder what the motive is.

That's the "right" side of the false discussion, as said. Comes from right-wing think tanks, Cato Institute etc...

Divide and conquer. Machiavelli.

http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg

That humans have impact on climate is obvious. That the cost is to be externalized to the public is not.

Yep, it's all about money. What a greedy, greedy world we live in.

For a lot of people it's in their best interest economically speaking to deny climate change. And then there are people who are paid by those same people to agree with them and try to persuade the public as well.

Everything changes, the climate included. The climate change deniers have financial interest.

People not deny the climate change, he know of climate change, but deny for an illusion.  ???

When will be too much late, people will cry.  >:(

If oil industry did back, maybe a better world is possible.

 Because they don't feel that they are prepared to face these problems. Billions of lives would have to be changed. In order to cease carbon-related emissions in order to meet targets in a continuously growing world, the entire energy industry for developed nations has to be re-wired. Power stations don't just build, install, and operate themselves. This changes employment, and this costs money for the new facilities.

Can't expect developing nations to pay for carbon tax when the the west had done the same in the past without paying a penny.

I have never in my entire life met a scientifically literate person who does not understand that the climate has changed. IMO, climate denial is now in the total crackpot category along with flat Earth believers, bigfoot experts and other child-like beliefs.  You must be willfully ignorant at this point.

The scariest thing about this change is that there is absolutely no reason to believe it will stop before killing off most/all life on Earth.

As does the other side.
A lot of the research has been simply badly executed, on both sides too.

Lack of good information and the realization that a lot of the things climate change activists have said might be bullshit could contribute to skepticism. Not that many people have really analyzed those things or know how the data has been gathered.

Also most people don't deny climate change, that is easily measured - it has changed. But is has changed before. It's the reasons that cause it that are subject to speculation.

"Unless we conserve the planet, there isn't going to be any 'the economy'" ~ Margaret Atwood. People seem only concerned about the here-and-now and the government panders to that.
So much for Cameron promising this was going to be "the greenest government ever".

Selfish economic interests are the reasons why climate change is ignored. The same reason that the overcrowding of the country is ignored. Money does not equal happiness.

David Cameron, who once promised that if you voted blue you would go green
This is probably a misquote.
What actually meant to say was something like "if you vote blue you would be green, very green indeed"!

I think there are some very wealthy people / interests who back denial, and are based in the U.S. The U.S. seems to have free speech for corporations, and some shielding of identity of people / corporations who may be financing a particular speech.

Sadly, that's true. Millions of people work far too hard and have lost the meaning of life. As life becomes more miserable, we think that working even harder to make us a bit more richer will make us happy again. The treadmill forever continues.

What happened to global warming?  ::)

Because propaganda. Simple as that, propaganda. They are idiots who listen to the propaganda from the right/corporate outlets and their "studies." They think there's some liberal control or conspiracy in government when liberals aren't anywhere in power.

Goodbye summer arctic ice, we'll miss you, you were so cool!

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png

Hmm... right here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Another three of four decades, and many of our heritage cities such as Venice and Baton Rouge will be gone for ever.

oil industry has injected millions of dollars into convincing people of it. money still buys influence. most of the cilmate change deniers are republicans, and it's not by coincidence.

Wasn't it one such creature that said something along the lines of: god told Noa that there wouldn't be another flood, so climate change can't be a problem. Brilliant.  ::)

But the truth is I'm not sure it's helpful to put this in the context of republicans versus democrats; perhaps the republicans are the ones taking most of the money from the oil companies, but the democrats are as corrupt as they are, and would probably join in if they could.

oh, i'm not saying the democrat politicians are angels who wouldn't accept money from the oil companies. i'm just saying the republicans do it, because it falls in line with their deny-facts-and-education voting base.

They believe the scientific community is divided, that it doesn't exist, or that G-d wouldn't let that happen.

climate change caused by man is a 90%+ consensus among scientists.. but don't bother presenting facts to the GOP base. they don't want any of that. jesus is great.

p.s., don't worry if you are female and get raped.. your body has defense mechanisms against it apparently. and vaccinations cause autism.

The same reason.

Why do people believe in climate change?

Fact? I'm not sure. I support clean energy production and renewables. But I am pretty nihilistic about our "knowledge" of broad climate cycles. I think the study of climate change has been largely politically charged and unscientific -- and the fact is, our primitive science really cannot give us the answers you think they can.

Adding to that the downright space phobia some people have means that we can't simply go out and confirm our data by studying other planets, I think I'm more pissed off that the climate change debate has become that politically oriented that no real science can get done, lobbyists ruin everything in democracies, I'd accept just about any theory out there if there were evidence to back it up but unfortunately a lot of climate 'science' revolves around hysterical bullshit and then maybe one mildly convincing chart.

Because it might be the natural cycle of the planet and not some big marketing schemes to sell so called green items.

To play devil's advocate -- that's precisely the point I was trying to make earlier. It might be. So, too, we can't be sure that so-called climate change is not really happening.

The OPEC lobby has injected billions of USD in to the anti-bio Diesel lobbying. And I have found that most of those people who are on their payrolls are Democrats, although some are from the GOP such as Jim Inhofe.

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark1


Looks like he was spot on

I think it's because they prefer not doing anything about it than helping the environment and working hard. I think it's pathetic.  >:(

What do you mean space phobia? Who's against studying other planets? Is this some sort of movement in America(I'm assuming here...)?

Interestingly it isn't just America responsible for this kind of ignorance for once but there are people out there who would genuinely have you believe that there is nothing of value out in space and so on with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Might want to read this..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Answer to this topic is as same as: "Why ppl mine at Ghas even tho they know they could fuck up whole network".
In short: "People are greedy morons".

They do not care about thir own children, they do not care about anyone else, anywhere else....just themselves.

Might want to check this:

http://www.cejournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/global-average-temp-running-means.jpg

This, it's not to deny climate change, it's to deny it's caused by humans, industrial activity. I've seen some good reasons why it may not be our fault but just Earth doing what it does.

Anyway, it's better to prevent than let it happen and even if it's not our fault it's still a problem because eventually the climate will change. We need to adapt to relatively small changes in temperature first to buy us more time to be able to control the climate.

Do you want to deny these facts?

1. The Carbon-di-Oxide levels in the atmosphere has risen by more than 50% during the last 50 years.
2. Gases like Carbon-di-Oxide and Methane causes the green house effect, which rises the surface temperature of the earth.
3. Every year, some 31 billion tonnes of Carbon-di-Oxide is released in to the atmosphere, as a result of the human activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Even if this is true, how do you propose solving this climate issue?

Kill 90% of the human population?

1. It's been higher then that in the past (a long time ago)
2. There are other scientists that believe it's the other way around (Carbon-di-Oxide and Methane are the side effects not the cause)
3. Animals and especially the sea produce a lot more

Not enough. That is still close to a billion humans. I think we need to get rid of about 99%+. Of course, I'm not volunteering. 
This also would not stop the warming for a long time, however. And once we cross the line that releases permafrost methane or carbon out-gassing in the ocean, then there is nothing we can do.

Why do people believe in the bible? It's a fact proven by physics biology and astronomy that the bible is a fairy tale yet most of the world believes it. Same thing about climate change.

Except that the natural cycle of the planet is well known and that the current changes are happening much faster.
Global temperatures are increasing when, according to Milankovitch's cycle, the temperature should actually be getting colder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Well, I was just saying on another thread that I think climate change does happen. There was an Ice Age not that long ago in a geological sense and we're still kinda coming out of it. BUT I think it is highly arrogant to say that human activity is the ONLY factor involved with climate change. If you're not a rabid Creationist who takes the Bible literally (and I know not all Christians are a Ken Ham who can get owned by a science educator), you know that Earth was here long before there were humans and will still be here long after those of us who are pioneering spirits have colonized other planets and the rest die in a worldwide cataclysm a la Hollywood style. Nature is good at bouncing back from disaster even if it might not ever look the same as it did before. Yes, replace your light bulbs with a more efficient version and remember to turn your lights and appliances off when you leave the room and do what you can to improve the gas mileage on your car, but do it because they'll save you on your energy and gasoline bill.

That's true, life on earth survived many massive extinctions and global disasters, and there's no way that human actions can damage nature for the long term.

The reason that trying to counter our impact on climate change is important, is to allow the future generations of humans to live in a healthy environment which has a sufficient amount of ressources to sustain them.

Maybe future generations of humans will finally be the ones who get it all figured out, switch entirely to hydrogen-powered everything, ban cigarettes entirely, grow hemp to use for making bricks and clothing instead of getting high on marijuana, and will eventually consider fossil fuels to be as much a dinosaur as the animals they probably came from (Oil and coal are called "fossil fuels" for a reason). Til then, we should just keep making those little changes in our own homes while it's still our choice and not something that's been regulated by any government or forced by running out of non-renewable resources.

Koch Industries and ExxonMobil were two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, along with hundreds of conservative think tanks / foundations.

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/2013/uyfvgytd.png

Taken from: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html (http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html)

....."Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.

    Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.

    Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.

    Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the inc."

There's a short list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Out of thousands, and thousands of scientists, we have a pretty short list.

Partly, because some of the doomsday climate predictions have been outlandish.

Its for their own sake! The people who deny climate change are backed up by big companies that will be affected if regulations were approved.

Its all about the money i think. Hope we could still reverse the effect before its too late.  :(

I didn't think there was much denying climate change.  I think the key issue that is debatable is if it is man made and if the costs of dealing with it are less than stopping and/or rolling back what some people say is causing it.  Having said that, I have a bad feeling it is man made and we are not going to do crap about it.

Well, that depends on each individual. Since no fast profits will be made by doing anything to prevent climate changes, it is up to the individual to do their part since no powerful corporations or government will want to get involved with this.

If everybody was educated about climate change and what they can do to help, the situation would be much more hopeful really.

But it's a lot better than it was 10 years ago so I guess things can still change :)

There isn't much one can do even if climate change is true.

There are people who earn much more denying climate change

1. Yes, and it was quite a different world; as in, a large part of the population would be displaced if we reached anywhere near the same levels today.
2. And how often is their work cited by other scientists? (that is, how accepted are their ideas?) Last I checked, they weren't.
3. The additional emissions we are producing are tipping the scales against us. Other sources of greenhouse gases we can't easily control, but human sources we can.

1. That just shows that the global worming was taking place before humans had any kind of effect on nature
2. Because today many institutes and industries make a living out of "eco rubbish" (for example hybrid or electric car)
3. It's not about additional emissions, it's about how little humans activity adds to the global amount of Carbon-di-Oxide

1. You're talking about completely different time scales here. The climate might vary on very large time scales and indeed have been warmer at some points in the distant past; but the recent warming we are seeing is taking place far faster, in the order of decades.
2. And because of that, the overwhelming majority of scientists from all over the world completely ignore a potentially revolutionary discovery? That's not how it works. Besides, far more powerful and influential industries have a vested interest in making people believe climate change is not real, and they've only been able to buy a handful of scientists.
3. It is about additional emissions: if you have a balancing scale with 50kg on each side and proceed to add 1kg to one side, the plates will shift. Same thing here.

Well, the number of people that believe that something is true doesn't have any influence on whenever it really is or not. It's a logical fallacy. Like Copernico proposed heliocentrism when everyone believed in geocentrism.


Yeah, this can be a cause.