Attn: Human Influenced Climate Change deniers

[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.

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.

The only problem with that logic is that "combating" it according to your side would result in the creation of a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world. Not to mention lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of westerners. All for a hypothesis that has never been subjected to the rigors of hard scientific inquiry. In science you don't set out to prove a hypothesis, the goal is to disprove it. You don't manipulate data to make it fit that hypothesis and you don't impose your hypothesis on people simply because you feel the conversation should be over. The use of terms like "climate change deniers" etc. to control the conversation is quite revealing.     

[1714503307]

1714503307

[1714503307]

1714503307

[1714503307]

1714503307

[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.

The only problem with that logic is that "combating" it according to your side would result in the creation of a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world. Not to mention lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of westerners. All for a hypothesis that has never been subjected to the rigors of hard scientific inquiry. In science you don't set out to prove a hypothesis, the goal is to disprove it. You don't manipulate data to make it fit that hypothesis and you don't impose your hypothesis on people simply because you feel the conversation should be over. The use of terms like "climate change deniers" etc. to control the conversation is quite revealing.    

^ This. Take some time and actually look at some of the proposed policies used to "combat" global warming and tell me again how there is nothing to lose. After all, without an enforcement mechanism, the law would only be a suggestion or a guideline and just serve as superficial dressing to cover actual environmental destruction.

[Spendulus]

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.

The only problem with that logic is that "combating" it according to your side would result in the creation of a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world. Not to mention lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of westerners. All for a hypothesis that has never been subjected to the rigors of hard scientific inquiry. In science you don't set out to prove a hypothesis, the goal is to disprove it. You don't manipulate data to make it fit that hypothesis and you don't impose your hypothesis on people simply because you feel the conversation should be over. The use of terms like "climate change deniers" etc. to control the conversation is quite revealing.    

^ This. Take some time and actually look at some of the proposed policies used to "combat" global warming and tell me again how there is nothing to lose. After all, without an enforcement mechanism, the law would only be a suggestion or a guideline and just serve as superficial dressing to cover actual environmental destruction.

It's also important to point out that specific attempts to control carbon emissions through government schemes such as cap and trade have failed, not succeeded.

[TheButterZone]

Where's the Daleks to put a stop to "human influenced climate change" when you need them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjLxeTfbXSQ

[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.

The only problem with that logic is that "combating" it according to your side would result in the creation of a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world. Not to mention lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of westerners. All for a hypothesis that has never been subjected to the rigors of hard scientific inquiry. In science you don't set out to prove a hypothesis, the goal is to disprove it. You don't manipulate data to make it fit that hypothesis and you don't impose your hypothesis on people simply because you feel the conversation should be over. The use of terms like "climate change deniers" etc. to control the conversation is quite revealing.    

^ This. Take some time and actually look at some of the proposed policies used to "combat" global warming and tell me again how there is nothing to lose. After all, without an enforcement mechanism, the law would only be a suggestion or a guideline and just serve as superficial dressing to cover actual environmental destruction.

I get that many climate models are flawed, and of course their results will not be entirely accurate - this is ongoing research and in theory should become more accurate as time goes on. I also would condemn any falsification/manipulation of data, as you say this is totally out of order in any scientific field.

By combating it, I'm mainly talking about using renewable/nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. I fail to see how this will create "a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world."

Of course it will cost money, but it needn't be money from individuals in the form of any enforceable "green tax", if this is what you're implying. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I genuinely don't see how renewables will cause worldwide depression. I would be against such a tax for individuals, but not necessarily for corporations who could afford it.

Also the fossil fuels will eventually run out, putting us in the same situation anyway, whether that's in 50 years or 500...

The energy companies make shitloads of profits on oil and gas, they should invest more of these profits into renewables and nuclear IMO. The reason they don't, is they know that it would take many years to ROI on renewables, while oil/gas is instant profit = the executives can pay off their mortgages in 5 years instead of 50 (OK bit of a simplistic explanation but you get the idea).

If it was up to me then I would say "legalize/tax weed in the UK and scrap the Trident nuclear program, then put 50% of the £100bn you just made into renewable energy and nuclear fusion research!!" (vote for me, vote for change )

Personally I don't think we can change our habits as a species anyway, I think we better all hope that we aren't causing the climate change. If we are, then in the future we'll have to turn Greenland into a huge geoengineering plant, or send everyone to Mars or something... 

[protokol]

Where's the Daleks to put a stop to "human influenced climate change" when you need them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjLxeTfbXSQ

 

[Swordsoffreedom]

Not a denier
Read enough of the Quest from Yergin to pretty much say that the data now backs up the accusations and was 20-30 years in the making where it was fuzzy before the models are closer to conclusive evidence for it.

But hmm move the planet like in futurama 

[beetcoin]

if you are a denier, then you are just flat out wrong. an overwhelming majority of scientists say that climate change is man-made, and the science backs it up. something like 90%+ agreed on it.

the one who deny it.. i wouldn't be surprised if they were schills for the energy/oil industries.

also, i used to watch CNN.. when i started to notice how bullshit it was, was when they kept on running those exxon mobil commercials.

[Spendulus]

if you are a denier, then you are just flat out wrong. an overwhelming majority of scientists say that climate change is man-made, and the science backs it up. something like 90%+ agreed on it.

the one who deny it.. i wouldn't be surprised if they were schills for the energy/oil industries.

also, i used to watch CNN.. when i started to notice how bullshit it was, was when they kept on running those exxon mobil commercials.

For anything you say that's true, you would first have to be able to define denier.  If you couldn't do it without creating strawman arguments, tough.

Having made that minor note, bolded statement above is enough of an exaggeration to be a lie.

[beetcoin]

if you are a denier, then you are just flat out wrong. an overwhelming majority of scientists say that climate change is man-made, and the science backs it up. something like 90%+ agreed on it.

the one who deny it.. i wouldn't be surprised if they were schills for the energy/oil industries.

also, i used to watch CNN.. when i started to notice how bullshit it was, was when they kept on running those exxon mobil commercials.

For anything you say that's true, you would first have to be able to define denier.  If you couldn't do it without creating strawman arguments, tough.

Having made that minor note, bolded statement above is enough of an exaggeration to be a lie.

how else could you interpret a denier? someone who says that burning fossil fuel, coal, and other energy forms is absolutely NOT causing the heat to be trapped by our ozone layer.

it's not an exaggeration. take a look at wikipedia, or listen to a vast majority of scientists speak. the only reason why there is any form of "dissent" is because companies worth billions of dollars are profiting from it, so they have a lot of money leftover to spread misinformation. i mean, shit, you probably can't watch any cable news channel without seeing an exxon mobil commercial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/

[Swordsoffreedom]

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

[beetcoin]

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

i'm not entirely sure about this issue.. if we invest in greener energy, that could create new industries and help with the economy. the only problem is that the top top 3 oil producers are worth $1 trillion dollars.. if they end up investing even .1% of that into lobbying for looser regulations or even stopping green energy industries from forming, that's still a billion dollars to buy politicians and brueaucrats.

[Panthers52]

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

i'm not entirely sure about this issue.. if we invest in greener energy, that could create new industries and help with the economy. the only problem is that the top top 3 oil producers are worth $1 trillion dollars.. if they end up investing even .1% of that into lobbying for looser regulations or even stopping green energy industries from forming, that's still a billion dollars to buy politicians and brueaucrats.

We have invested billions into "green" energy with no success. It is simply not cost efficient to produce green energy.

[beetcoin]

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

i'm not entirely sure about this issue.. if we invest in greener energy, that could create new industries and help with the economy. the only problem is that the top top 3 oil producers are worth $1 trillion dollars.. if they end up investing even .1% of that into lobbying for looser regulations or even stopping green energy industries from forming, that's still a billion dollars to buy politicians and brueaucrats.

We have invested billions into "green" energy with no success. It is simply not cost efficient to produce green energy.

that's misinformation. solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper (with investments), and they are very effective in germany, even though there's a lot of rain in that area.

maybe instead of invading the middle east and spend trillions of dollars in that region of the world, we should take that money and put it into renewable resources. but nah, there's more money in invading countries and stripping them of their natural resources.

in california, with the rising cost of energy, people are getting more and more solar panels by the day.. and it's saving them money.

[Panthers52]

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

i'm not entirely sure about this issue.. if we invest in greener energy, that could create new industries and help with the economy. the only problem is that the top top 3 oil producers are worth $1 trillion dollars.. if they end up investing even .1% of that into lobbying for looser regulations or even stopping green energy industries from forming, that's still a billion dollars to buy politicians and brueaucrats.

We have invested billions into "green" energy with no success. It is simply not cost efficient to produce green energy.

that's misinformation. solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper (with investments), and they are very effective in germany, even though there's a lot of rain in that area.

maybe instead of invading the middle east and spend trillions of dollars in that region of the world, we should take that money and put it into renewable resources. but nah, there's more money in invading countries and stripping them of their natural resources.

in california, with the rising cost of energy, people are getting more and more solar panels by the day.. and it's saving them money.

Solar panels are getting cheaper because the government is increasing their subsides for them. You need to remember that when you buy a solar panel you need to place it somewhere (eg: on land that you own/rent) and this costs money as too (this will get more expensive over time).

[Swordsoffreedom]

Solar works but the problem is that it lacks intermittency which is that it provides power consistently regardless of the condition
If its cloudy solar does not produce much power or at night unlike gas and oil which is stable and provides energy regardless of the conditions a steady supply of power is a must.

Wind power is popular but its noisy apparently and a large anti-wind coalition is forming against its implementation near peoples houses.
From the CBC a documentary on that issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/wind-rush

* Comments on this documentary suggest some FUD so will just leave the note that in general the noise a wind farm can make can give people grievances who live nearby.
Guess you need to think who put the money into the documentary at the same time.

[beetcoin]

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

i'm not entirely sure about this issue.. if we invest in greener energy, that could create new industries and help with the economy. the only problem is that the top top 3 oil producers are worth $1 trillion dollars.. if they end up investing even .1% of that into lobbying for looser regulations or even stopping green energy industries from forming, that's still a billion dollars to buy politicians and brueaucrats.

We have invested billions into "green" energy with no success. It is simply not cost efficient to produce green energy.

that's misinformation. solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper (with investments), and they are very effective in germany, even though there's a lot of rain in that area.

maybe instead of invading the middle east and spend trillions of dollars in that region of the world, we should take that money and put it into renewable resources. but nah, there's more money in invading countries and stripping them of their natural resources.

in california, with the rising cost of energy, people are getting more and more solar panels by the day.. and it's saving them money.

Solar panels are getting cheaper because the government is increasing their subsides for them. You need to remember that when you buy a solar panel you need to place it somewhere (eg: on land that you own/rent) and this costs money as too (this will get more expensive over time).

heard of scale economies? panels are currently more expensive than conventional means of energy... but the gap is shrinking more and more because more money is invested in improving the technology.. and to add to that, mmore people buying any product = cheaper prices.

Solar works but the problem is that it lacks intermittency which is that it provides power consistently regardless of the condition
If its cloudy solar does not produce much power or at night unlike gas and oil which is stable and provides energy regardless of the conditions a steady supply of power is a must.

Wind power is popular but its noisy apparently and a large anti-wind coalition is forming against its implementation near peoples houses.
From the CBC a documentary on that issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/wind-rush

* Comments on this documentary suggest some FUD so will just leave the note that in general the noise a wind farm can make can give people grievances who live nearby.
Guess you need to think who put the money into the documentary at the same time.

there's a reason why solar panels are still successful in germany (where it rains a lot). read this...

Cloudier locations are still a good match for solar

Germany gets only about as much sunshine as the state of Alaska, but Germans have successfully installed about 25 gigawatts of solar power– half of the entire world’s supply. Portland, Oregon is known for its rainy, dreary winters, but is another good location for solar power: over a full year, despite the winter weather, Portland gets as much sunshine as the average U.S. city. Cities like Portland also have slightly cooler weather than average, which is an advantage for solar panels. Because of the electronics inside, solar panels work best when they aren’t too hot. In a city with extreme summer heat, solar is a little less efficient, which is part of the reason why solar panels in cloudy San Francisco can actually produce more power over a year than the slightly sunnier, hotter city of Sacramento.

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/

[superresistant]

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. 

Humans are not gonna die because of a climate change. The civilisation as we know it will die and that's probably a good thing.

[RedDiamond]

The climate is not stable, it is always changing. For example in Antartic there is now lot of ice and extremely cold:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

Ice reflects the Sun’s rays up into the atmosphere and out to space, which keeps solar radiation from warming the Antartic so it is possible that we are going to see even more cold (and more ice) in near future.

[hologram]

Anyway if AGW exist it's not a good justification to fascism.