Global warming is real, why only in USA is there denial ?

grizzzman

Some say "Why" and some say "Why not?"
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
1,266
3_2.png
 

MurphyGuy

It just needs a bigger hammer
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
1,516
I could provide a lot of them, but I'm sure your favourite search engine will do it more efficiently - and unobtrusively, for the thread.
I checked, no link to your claim. You must have gotten that 2nd hand off one of those quacky wacky websites and you just believed what you were told.

Please provide a link to that ridiculous claim.
 

MurphyGuy

It just needs a bigger hammer
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
1,516
I could go on but if you cry wolf enough times people loose trust.
LOL.. I have to ask this because I no longer give people the credit of understanding basic things in life..

You're quoting an article from 1970.. You can read that right? You're quoting one guy from the 1970, he's a biologist apparently, and he's making claims without evidence in an era when humans still thought the Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe and only ten years after the first dedicated weather satellite was in space.

The fact that you posted that speaks volumes..

Just curious.. church on Sundays ???
 

grizzzman

Some say "Why" and some say "Why not?"
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
1,266
I checked, no link to your claim. You must have gotten that 2nd hand off one of those quacky wacky websites and you just believed what you were told.

Please provide a link to that ridiculous claim.
Well I may be dating myself but I was around during this time-frame. There are many more examples that I have personally seen as well. Whats with the apparent name calling?"quaky wacky" comments? With the exception of funerals I have not been in a church in many many decades. What does this have to do with the OPs question?? Thank you for sharing your point of view.
 

Don B. Cilly

Energetic energy padawan
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
1,117
Location
Mallorca ES
I checked, no link to your claim.

Not even a mention of Al Gore? Impressive "checking".
Anyway (what I've personally come to believe - after some twenty years' careful study of the subject - is, climate change is real. Human activity, and especially CO2, have no impact on it. Whatsoever) discussing dogma is a useless proposition. You basically get into Inquisition-like situations. What they call a "denier" is what they called a "heretic". No... discussion is really possible.

I'll just stop rising to the bait of this sort of thing, shall I.
I was just hoping a community of people who deals with photons and electrons in a practical way would be more sensible on this sort of subject.
 

MurphyGuy

It just needs a bigger hammer
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
1,516
Not even a mention of Al Gore? Impressive "checking".
Anyway (what I've personally come to believe - after some twenty years' careful study of the subject - is, climate change is real. Human activity, and especially CO2, have no impact on it. Whatsoever) discussing dogma is a useless proposition. You basically get into Inquisition-like situations. What they call a "denier" is what they called a "heretic". No... discussion is really possible.

I'll just stop rising to the bait of this sort of thing, shall I.
I was just hoping a community of people who deals with photons and electrons in a practical way would be more sensible on this sort of subject.
So you're backing away from your initial ridiculous claim and trying to deflect attention with the Al Gore statement.. Got it.. Check.

That's what I thought you'd do.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.. I would say mine are irrelevant as well, but I don't have beliefs so it doesn't apply.

Basically, what you're doing is using a power source created by science, to power a machine that was also created by science, to then connect to a network created by science, to log onto a website created by science, to then proclaim you don't believe the science.. ROFLMAO.. and you have the nerve to use words like "sensible" ???? WTF?

And we both know when your life is on the line, you will run to the nearest hospital and beg the doctors to use all their science to save you...

Priceless.

This community of people here generally understands that humans are warming up the planet.. Go to a homesteading website, a cooking website, or a website where people talk about knitting, and you will find that the pendulum swings to the other side. This is due to the general average educational levels of the members.

You don't find many uneducated, bible thumping, ghost chasing, superstitious people in certain circles. Visit any astronomy forum or physics group, and you'd be lucky to find even one climate change denier.... Yes, its an educational thing.. The more science education one has, the more likely they are to understand the subject, and therefore, the more likely they are to agree with the man made problems.

It really is that simple.
 

Dzl

Perpetual Newbie & Unofficial Forum Librarian
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
5,089
I could provide a lot of them, but I'm sure your favourite search engine will do it more efficiently - and unobtrusively, for the thread.
Citing credible sources for claims you make is never obtrusive, its a basic requirement of making a contested claim/argument in good faith.

Here are a few examples of how you could unobtrusively cite a source inline:
  • Modeling something as large and complicated as the climate is complicated and imperfect, but on the whole projections have been remarkably accurate. A meta analysis of 17 different climate models exhibited no systematic over or under prediction of global temperature rise, and found predictions on average to be accurate.
  • Considering the complexity of climate modeling, its impressive to see how accurately the average of 58 climate simulations from 14 different climate models tracked with observed climate change. (See: IPCC 2018, pg 600)
 
Last edited:

Brett V

Solar Addict
Joined
Apr 5, 2021
Messages
326
The climate change scam is a new religion espoused by zealot believers who cry heretic whenever they're challenged. Greta Thunberg's sneering indignation "how dare you".... spare me the theatre. I've seen better performances from Jim & Tammy Baker. Operators are standing by to take your donation so call now and pledge your faith. Have your credit card ready. I mostly sit back and laugh at the whole charade because that's all it's worth.
 

MurphyGuy

It just needs a bigger hammer
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
1,516
The climate change scam is a new religion espoused by zealot believers who cry heretic whenever they're challenged. Greta Thunberg's sneering indignation "how dare you".... spare me the theatre. I've seen better performances from Jim & Tammy Baker. Operators are standing by to take your donation so call now and pledge your faith. Have your credit card ready. I mostly sit back and laugh at the whole charade because that's all it's worth.
That is what is called "Psychological Projection." A very clear example.. Who is Jim and Tammy Baker?? Huh? Had to google them.. Yikes.

Religion, by definition, is an irrational belief system.. There is nothing irrational about climate science as it is based on evidence.

Also, those who challenge climate science are either: 1) Professional and educated scientists who decided to accept large sums of money (very few of them) to cast doubt, or 2) The types of people who wouldn't recognize the difference between atoms of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, if you LITERALLY drew them a diagram with crayons and cute colors.

99.999% fall under #2.. Go ahead, try drawing the three atoms correctly without looking them up and let me know how it goes.
 

robby

Photon Vampire
Joined
May 1, 2021
Messages
2,080
Humans and Frogs have a lot in common. We both only take action if the pain is immediate. If not we both sit in the Pot until the water boils and kills us.
 

Pappion

Retired Engineer Tech
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
322
I am not denying climate change.
I do deny the severity you expect.
I also deny that reducing CO2, etc.. will change anything.
I accept we are at or near saturation for CO2 effect. More will have almost no effect.
I accept we need large scale atmospheric Carbon Capture and sequestration. Reduction would pair well with that.
I also accept that Miami under water is pretty normal for Earth constantly changing climate. Another equilibrium.
 

Hedges

I See Electromagnetic Fields!
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
11,561
Also, those who challenge climate science are either: 1) Professional and educated scientists who decided to accept large sums of money (very few of them) to cast doubt, or 2) The types of people who wouldn't recognize the difference between atoms of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, if you LITERALLY drew them a diagram with crayons and cute colors.

Anyone who doesn't challenge climate science isn't a scientist.
 

Bud Martin

Photon Sorcerer
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
3,451
It is also making big buck while preaching about climate change.
Bill Gate claims the climate change will be worst than COVID, means while:
To me It is about how the money is actually being used to deal with climate change. Does any one have any ideas how much money actually being used to fight climate change and not going into the Elitist pockets? Is there third party that actually find out and reports where carbon credit actually goes to?
 
Last edited:

robby

Photon Vampire
Joined
May 1, 2021
Messages
2,080
There is a small percentage of the population that was born in the 60s that had the privilege to travel as a teenager or young man in the 70s and 80s and who remember what the world was like. Sadly just like a sighted man trying to explain to a blind man what site is like, it is just as futile to explain what has already been lost. The burden on the young people of today is remembering seeing the last fragments disappear.
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
5,617
Location
Key Largo
The news does like to sensationalize whacky claims (e.g., those of Dr. Ehrlich). But, most didn't believe them at the time, and even the ones that sounded real were debunked within a few years. I can see where some would want to lump the IPCC into that category, but the IPCC isn't an individual or small group (it represents the majority of scientists) and instead of being debunked the models have been spot on (see graph below) for three decades. Last year I was a skeptic, but if you really look into it, you learn it's real and needs immediate attention.

When you see news claims about places being underwater, that's generally poor understanding sensationalized by the news (e.g., sea level rise is happening, but the current rate is one-eighth of an inch per year; so it'll take a while before gondolas are in the streets of Miami). The IPCC reports include "margins" for their accuracy, and some of the predictions have very high accuracy, and some are rather low. The problem with sensationalizing a low probability as "fact" is that often causes skepticism, but I'd say blame the news media.

...I accept we are at or near saturation for CO2 effect. More will have almost no effect....
More still does more harm. For those wanting a more detailed explanation see https://diysolarforum.com/threads/c...ith-a-battery-break-through.25299/post-368177.
The IPCC's models are spot-on ;·)
True! They've always fallen within the margin of accuracy (upper/lower lines) and they're being improved all the time (more here). It's eerie how accurate they've been, here's the 2013 graph, the red dots are from me putting in the measured temperatures (click the image for the post)


...[global warming] You can't stop it, you cant change it.
Pfft. Ever heard of nuclear winter? There are dozens of plan "B"s from exploding WIll's backyard into the stratosphere with nukes to making aerosols from the oceans that can have immediate and drastic cooling actions. The problem with Plan Bs are they represent huge unknowns and as bad a global warming is we can survive it (they often don't solve all the problems either (e.g., ocean acidification)). That is they scare the bejesus out of us because global cooling is a lot harder problem to fix and the last time it happened we almost died off. The sensible thing to do is what we are doing (eg., eliminate what we've done to cause it (e.g., net-zero on three biggest, which in order are N2O, CH4, and CO2, (CFCs were even worse, but we banned those years ago to restore the ozone )).
 
Last edited:
Top