Attn: Human Influenced Climate Change deniers

[protokol]

What if you're wrong?

[1714868350]

1714868350

[1714868350]

1714868350

[1714868350]

1714868350

[protokol]

I get that some of the climate change data is a little sketchy, for instance using flawed models etc. I myself have been on the fence for years re: climate change, and whether we're causing it.

Although I don't fully believe in it, the majority of respected science journals (ie. Science, Nature etc.)have published a lot of evidence that suggests it could be happening.

So it makes sense for me to go with the assumption. I've heard that whole "green tax" angle. I don't buy it, simply because it is currently a lot more lucrative to use fossil fuels, rather than more expensive renewable energy resources. Maybe in the future, if fossil fuels do become scarce, we will need to switch to nuclear and renewable energy.

[RodeoX]

That's easy! If your wrong we watch the next extinction event unfold! Slowly at first, then an all out collapse of the food chain. Humans will go quite early in this process and if it's like earlier events, most life on Earth will perish.
It is likely that some microbes and maybe even an animal or two will survive, and over millions of years the Earth might become a living planet once again. That's the good news. 

[TheButterZone]

What happened on Venus was all the Venusians' fault, and they absolutely had the god-tier power to reverse what they started.

[jcoin200]

My problem is that Obama claims the "science is settled" on global warming when it clearly is not.  I dont think there is any conclusive evidence humans are causing "climate change" and that we are not just in a cyclical "warm period"

[protokol]

My problem is that Obama claims the "science is settled" on global warming when it clearly is not.  I dont think there is any conclusive evidence humans are causing "climate change" and that we are not just in a cyclical "warm period"

I don't agree that it's settled, but the general consensus seems to be that it is happening. I have access to a couple of decent journals re: climate change, and although I don't understand all the details, nearly all papers that I've read seem to back the theory.

Even without 100% conclusive evidence, I don't see many drawbacks to just assuming that we are causing climate change, and trying to switch to renewable and nuclear energy.

[jcoin200]

My problem is that Obama claims the "science is settled" on global warming when it clearly is not.  I dont think there is any conclusive evidence humans are causing "climate change" and that we are not just in a cyclical "warm period"

I don't agree that it's settled, but the general consensus seems to be that it is happening. I have access to a couple of decent journals re: climate change, and although I don't understand all the details, nearly all papers that I've read seem to back the theory.

Even without 100% conclusive evidence, I don't see many drawbacks to just assuming that we are causing climate change, and trying to switch to renewable and nuclear energy.

I agree, the problem traces back again, to corrupt govt.  See the article on the $535 million O gave to Solyndra, which of course failed so basically the money was given to his donors and supporters.  The govt is not trying to actually get us off fossil fuels, only trying to create the illusion that they are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/

The same thing with adding 10% ethanol to gas.  It burns less efficiently, and actually uses more gas to produce it, making it energy inefficient, not to mention it drives food prices up.  Yet its another illusion to make people think the govt is trying to help

[Bogleg]

What if you're wrong?

Using fear is not a valid form of argument.

[Lethn]

What if you're wrong?

Using fear is not a valid form of argument.

Exactly, bring me data and evidence, then we'll talk, by the way, at least he was decent enough to put human influenced instead of just claiming all the people who argue against it are the same, corrupt political interest groups and lobbying have completely ruined the climate change debate.

[Benjig]

The earth climate has been changing all the time, with humans or without them, there is nothing to be afraid.

[Spendulus]

My problem is that Obama claims the "science is settled" on global warming when it clearly is not.  I dont think there is any conclusive evidence humans are causing "climate change" and that we are not just in a cyclical "warm period"

I don't agree that it's settled, but the general consensus seems to be that it is happening. I have access to a couple of decent journals re: climate change, and although I don't understand all the details, nearly all papers that I've read seem to back the theory.

Even without 100% conclusive evidence, I don't see many drawbacks to just assuming that we are causing climate change, and trying to switch to renewable and nuclear energy.

Even though you likely don't know what "a denier" is, you will not find any of them disagreein with you on more nuclear energy.

Who you will find disagreeing about more nuclear are the regressive anti-industrial factions of the environmental lobby, the Democratic party, and the influential factions from the Middle East, who want us buying their oil.  So you are actually on the side of those preventing progress - the Anti Nuclear Energy Side.

Don't worry, the Deniers will welcome you with open arms.  It's a lot of fun in this playground.

[counter]

What if you're wrong?

That is a good question what would be the worst that could happen and what would submitting to any changes being suggested even change if things are really that bad?  As far as I'm aware the answer is more regulation and taxation on the average citizen.  If you want to discuss an issue as serious as this you need to really discuss how the problem started and was allowed to get so bad IMO.

[Cicero2.0]

What if you're wrong?

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

[protokol]

What if you're wrong?

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics.

To elaborate: The majority of evidence suggests that it's happening. There is also a small amount of evidence suggesting it's not. But, even if the majority is wrong, I don't see many downsides to trying to combat it anyway.

[TECSHARE]

What if you're wrong?

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics.

To elaborate: The majority of evidence suggests that it's happening. There is also a small amount of evidence suggesting it's not. But, even if the majority is wrong, I don't see many downsides to trying to combat it anyway.

What if YOU are wrong? All it will cost is complete sacrifice of sovereignty of nations, global taxes, global banks, global government, and loss of many freedoms in addition to all the lives lost in the developing world, all based on a theory which can't be confirmed with empirical data. I look forward to watching you get your ass handed to you here.

[Lethn]

What if you're wrong?

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics.

To elaborate: The majority of evidence suggests that it's happening. There is also a small amount of evidence suggesting it's not. But, even if the majority is wrong, I don't see many downsides to trying to combat it anyway.

Yes the climate change is happening, that doesn't mean it's going to be the end of the world, that's why people claim you're using scare tactics and actually it's something a lot of people who argue about climate change do.

[protokol]

What if you're wrong?

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics.

To elaborate: The majority of evidence suggests that it's happening. There is also a small amount of evidence suggesting it's not. But, even if the majority is wrong, I don't see many downsides to trying to combat it anyway.

What if YOU are wrong? All it will cost is complete sacrifice of sovereignty of nations, global taxes, global banks, global government, and loss of many freedoms in addition to all the lives lost in the developing world, all based on a theory which can't be confirmed with empirical data. I look forward to watching you get your ass handed to you here.

Woah bit defensive there, like I said I don't necessarily believe it.

I don't really buy your apocalyptic predictions though, I mean all I see currently are governments pretending to care ("buy a bag for life", "put your TV off standby at night" blah blah blah). But they still seem to approve of huge industrial pollution via corporate energy companies and manufacturers.

I don't think we would really lose any freedoms, succumb to global banks/taxes etc. It doesn't fit into their agenda IMO; surely big banks and governments would prefer to exploit the most profitable energy sources ie. oil and gas?

[Spendulus]

...
I don't think we would really lose any freedoms, succumb to global banks/taxes etc. It doesn't fit into their agenda IMO; surely big banks and governments would prefer to exploit the most profitable energy sources ie. oil and gas?

No, they want to exploit every exploitable thing, and crush things which are marginally exploitable.

[tsoPANos]

Well, I believe that the truth lies upon in the middle.
There is a climate change, but it may be slightly influenced by humans.
It is o common phenomenon on Earth for the climate to change over time.

[TECSHARE]

What if you're wrong?

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics.

To elaborate: The majority of evidence suggests that it's happening. There is also a small amount of evidence suggesting it's not. But, even if the majority is wrong, I don't see many downsides to trying to combat it anyway.

What if YOU are wrong? All it will cost is complete sacrifice of sovereignty of nations, global taxes, global banks, global government, and loss of many freedoms in addition to all the lives lost in the developing world, all based on a theory which can't be confirmed with empirical data. I look forward to watching you get your ass handed to you here.

Woah bit defensive there, like I said I don't necessarily believe it.

I don't really buy your apocalyptic predictions though, I mean all I see currently are governments pretending to care ("buy a bag for life", "put your TV off standby at night" blah blah blah). But they still seem to approve of huge industrial pollution via corporate energy companies and manufacturers.

I don't think we would really lose any freedoms, succumb to global banks/taxes etc. It doesn't fit into their agenda IMO; surely big banks and governments would prefer to exploit the most profitable energy sources ie. oil and gas?

You use the phrase "climate change deniers" which pretty clearly dictates to me where you get your information from, and telegraphs your bias. I am not defensive I am proactive. I am limiting the back and fourth practiced script you have and getting right to the point. The name of the game in government is control the opposition. That means both sides, red and blue.

 They are the industrialists, they are the environmentalists. They are everyone because they are nothing but a tool for the corporate state, and corporations can be anything, they are just words on paper with the backing of the law. They will exploit every angle to gain the objectives they desire. Pretty much all of public debate on any polarizing topic now days is a carefully managed Hollywood production with an agenda behind it other than what is publicly disclosed. It is all about fighting for that share of your brain space, and using your cognitive dissonance and dissatisfaction as a carrot and stick approach to keep the world moving to the beat of their drum. You can only see the world in 2 dimensions when they are exploiting multiple dimensions. You are being sold a narrative.